! 
 i 
 
 u 
 
 I) 
 
 ᾿ 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE STUDY OF THE 
 
 Ob: TESTAMENT 
 
PRINTED BY 
 SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE 
 LONDON 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE STUDY OF THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHANN GOTTFRIED EICHORN 
 
 A FRAGMENT TRANSLATED 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE TILLY GOLLOP, ESQ. 
 
 PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION 
 1888 
 
ass ee a ᾿ - 
 WGAHOG 2 %4 
 | ἥ [a aa 
 
 var 
 ᾿ 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 ----- a --- 
 
 My FATHER acquired a knowledge of the German language 
 during his travels in the country in 1815-16. He trans- 
 lated some of the minor poems of Schiller in 1823. Later, 
 his attention was directed to German Theology, and finding 
 there was no English version of Eichorn’s ‘ Introduction to 
 the Study of the Old Testament,’ he set to work to make 
 one. For this purpose he studied Hebrew and Arabic ; 
 with Greek he was well acquainted. 
 
 But he gave up the task when he had translated a 
 portion of the work, and he took no steps for printing 
 even this. Now, in his ninety-eighth year, he has asked 
 me to have the fragment printed. The translation was 
 made from an early edition of Eichorn’s works. 
 
 From my ignorance of the languages of antiquity, it is 
 not within my competence to do more than to correct the 
 proofs of the translation. I regret that circumstances 
 prevent my calling in further help than has been kindly 
 afforded by the printer. 
 
 The progress of Biblical criticism in the last hundred 
 years is so great that Hichorn’s ‘ Introduction to the Study 
 of the Old Testament’ may be of inferior interest to the 
 
vi INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 works of later writers, but Eichorn was a pioneer in the 
 field of Biblical Criticism. His writings are distinguished 
 by moderation, ingenuity, sound learning, and common 
 sense. They may therefore still be read with interest 
 and advantage, and their value is not altogether lost, in 
 
 spite of the long period of time which has elapsed since 
 they were first published. 
 
 CHRISTINE G. J. REEVE. 
 
 62 RUTLAND GATE: December 1888. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 THE, THIED DE et ON: 
 
 HowEVER willingly I might have undertaken the labour 
 of giving an entirely new form to this new edition of the 
 ‘Introduction to the Old Testament,’ my contemporaries 
 have hitherto afforded me small occasion to exchange the 
 results of my former researches against other convictions. 
 I am obliged, therefore, to confine myself merely to remedy 
 the defects of the former editions to the best of my judg- 
 ment and power, and bring the present one up to the 
 level of the existing state of Biblical Literature. The 
 proposed alterations, then, affect less the entire work than 
 its details, and I hope to have omitted nothing essential 
 from new works which may have appeared, either to its 
 increase or improvement. May the public be only as well 
 pleased with the present as with past editions! 
 
 To its indulgence and the unseen blessings which, as 
 an author, I have hitherto reaped, am I alone indebted for 
 _ the courage with which undismayed I still proceed on 
 
Vill INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 my path of authorship, though vexed not seldom by the 
 unpleasant chances along the same which grudge and 
 greed have brought upon me. Even as regards this book 
 they have not been wanting. For although its rightful 
 publishers and author have done everything to place it as 
 cheap as possible in the hands of the public, and to that 
 end its five and a half quires (of the former editions) or 
 126 sheets, in spite of the dearness of printing, cost the 
 buyer, as the shop price, even without the least abatement, 
 only 4 rixdollars and 8 good groschen, yet still towards 
 this cheap book the ravenous hand of piracy was stretched, 
 and immediately after the appearance of the former 
 editions the value of their property was repeatedly re- 
 duced to the publishers and author. Notwithstanding 
 this injury the publishers will only raise the price in 
 proportion to the increased cost of printing and paper 
 since 1788. Should it, however, now please the pirates, 
 according to their usual practice, to seize the property of 
 this new altered and improved edition, the necessary 
 measures are already taken to reduce their false wares to 
 waste paper. 
 
 Immediately after the completion of this new edition 
 of the ‘ Introduction to the Old Testament’ the short and 
 popular form of the poetical scriptures of the Jews, of 
 which I published the Book of Job two years ago as a 
 specimen, will be sent to press, and this book also I shall 
 make it a duty to give to the public as cheap as possible. 
 
 GOETTINGEN : April 17, 1803. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 THE SECON DY EDIEPION. 
 
 THE merely theological use of the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament has hitherto, more than might be imagined, 
 hindered the due estimation of these works of grey anti- 
 quity. They were searched only for religious ideas, and 
 men remained blind to their other contents; they were 
 read without regard to antiquity or its languages, almost as 
 if a work of modern times, and, according to the varying 
 strength of the readers’ mental faculties, the most hetero- 
 geneous results discovered in them. One class of readers 
 easily persuaded themselves that their religious notions 
 were not only communicated to the Hebrews by means of 
 many supernatural events, but that they were also, by means 
 of a succession of similar wonders, preserved amongst them, 
 and so handed down to posterity. Another class, on the 
 contrary, who viewed with a clearer glance the nature of the 
 Jewish religion and its separate ideas, resented so far the 
 apparent improbability, incredibility, and in part the im- 
 
x INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 possibility, of these representations, as to treat the Jewish 
 Scriptures with mockery and contempt, and even deny 
 them the mere justice extended to the commonest writings. 
 This treatment went on the supposition that the Jewish 
 Scriptures really contained everything quoted from them, 
 and which even to a reflecting glance might seem hardly 
 to be their necessary sense. Nothing but an expounder 
 of their contents was wanting to reconcile thinking men 
 to these extremely important monuments of the human 
 mind, and a champion of their importance who might 
 show that the greater part of the miracles and supernatural 
 events are not contained in the books at all, but were 
 introduced into them from mere misapprehension and 
 ignorance of the language and mode of representation 
 which they possess in common with all the works of remote 
 antiquity ; and to direct their attention to the fact that 
 these books contain so complete an account of the culture 
 and enlightenment of an ancient people as there exists 
 nowhere else ; that they exhibit this people to us under 
 circumstances which reach further back than the oldest 
 written records extant of any other known and far-famed 
 nation of antiquity, and that they give occasion for the 
 most important considerations to men and to human history. 
 
 These principles and objects, without keeping which 
 in view mistake is so easy in many parts of the Old Tes- 
 tament, I had firmly grasped at an early period; and to 
 point out the same was one of the purposes I proposed to 
 myself in the elaboration of this ‘Introduction to the Old 
 Testament. For this very reason I might have chosen 
 another plan and title had I not known how necessary it is 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ΧῚ 
 
 (particularly to a young author), even with regard to the 
 external form of a book, to pay due regard to the reigning 
 tone of opinion amongst his contemporaries; and I hoped 
 that this innocent artifice of a title-page might draw 
 greater attention to my work and increase the resort to its 
 contents. 
 
 According to the plan thus adopted, it became neces- 
 sary to commence with a prefatory chapter on Literature, 
 in which I should strive to combine all information, both 
 ancient and modern, with regard to the external structure 
 of the Old Testament; and, to the extent of my means, 
 throw light on dark matter, introduce some order into con- 
 fusion, and reduce what was doubtful to a greater degree 
 of certainty. It was necessary to apply my chief pains to 
 a field hitherto unbroken, namely, to an inquiry into the 
 internal structure of the separate books of the Old Testa- 
 ment by means of the higher criticism, a term strange to 
 no scholar. Whatever opinion may be formed of these 
 attempts, my conscience tells me nevertheless that they 
 are the result of anxious inquiries, though no one feels 
 a less prepossession for them than their author himself. 
 One man’s strength will scarcely suffice to bring these 
 Inquiries quickly to perfection; they demand a mind 
 always alert and clear, and who can long retain this 
 amidst such toilsome researches? They require the most 
 piercing insight into the inner nature of each book, and 
 what eye shall remain undimmed in the long run? Many 
 sources from whence information might be drawn are not 
 yet generally accessible. Who, then, at the present mo- 
 ment can produce an entirely perfect work? The materials 
 
ΧΙ INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 which require to be wrought for these inquiries may be 
 gathered and utilised in the case of one or of a few books, 
 but whose perseverance in research can hold out to the 
 extent of all the books with like pertinacity and patience ? 
 
 Deeply impressed with this conviction, I wished to delay 
 the task of a new edition of these attempts over a space of 
 many years; and in the meantime to forget entirely the 
 results of my former inquiries, in order to test them the 
 more freely, and be enabled the sooner to discover whether, 
 in weighing my proofs, I had gone too far and been too 
 hasty in my conclusions, or had failed to place my 
 opinions in the best possible light. With this view I had 
 settled with my friend, the late Reich, that instead of a 
 second edition of the First Part, which soon after its first 
 appearance became necessary, an exact copy, even to the 
 errata and old date, should be prepared ; and still more, 
 that the last Parts should be printed as they were at first. 
 
 In spite of these measures, the necessity for a new 
 edition of the whole work arrived much sooner than I 
 either wished or expected, and before I was become such a 
 stranger to my former researches asto venture on essential 
 alterations. 
 
 There remained to me then no other resources but 
 the opportunities of time and circumstances for the 
 improvement and perfecting of my former work, of 
 which in the First general Part more traces are to be found 
 than in the Second special one, because the former, in con- 
 sequence of the progressive discovery of new sources of 
 criticism, has been truly enriched, while for the latter 
 nothing has been done. Even the opinions which have 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ΧΙ] 
 
 reached me on the first edition, have failed to be as useful 
 as I had hoped. The Zurich critic has made use of his 
 Journal to enter more deeply into my subjects, and 
 I thought at first that my best means of evincing my 
 esteem and gratitude to him for his liberal remarks would 
 be to tell him with equal frankness why, with the excep- 
 tion of a few passages, I must still differ from him, and 
 for that purpose I had proposed to insert his criticisms, 
 accompanied by my remarks, in every suitable place in 
 this new edition; and, increased with these additions, the 
 First Part had been already despatched to Leipsic to be 
 printed. As soon, however, as I held in my hands the 
 first twelve sheets of the new edition, I felt what had 
 escaped me in running through my manuscript—a certain 
 heat in my objections, which displeased myself, and a 
 certain indecorum which by means of polemical insertions 
 had found its way into a book which at its first appearance 
 had carefully refrained from all hostility. I immediately, 
 therefore, struck out all remarks of this nature which were 
 intended for the following Parts, and employed, only 
 silently as it were, the bright hints and remarks of my 
 friends Brown and Adler, which they had sent me for the 
 First Part in manuscript. 
 
 JENA; February 26, 1787. 
 
pore 
 
 fg 2 pr ἊΝ Tah ΣΝ 
 
 ID 
 7 
 
 ors 
 
 Te ἢ: 
 
 ΝΥ is iy 
 aS 
 
 ce ll Ὶ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 I. Or JewisH LITERATURE IN GENERAL: OF THE PUBLI- 
 CATION, PRESERVATION, COLLECTION, GENUINENESS, 
 AND CANONICAL CHARACTER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. : ὲ 
 
 ΤΙ. History oF THE TEXTS OF THE Books OF THE OLD 
 
 TESTAMENT Β 3 
 
 III. Arps To THE CRITICAL ELABORATION OF THE OLD 
 
 TESTAMENT § A 
 
 PAGE 
 
 114 
 
 237 
 
ι΄ 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 One eis DENE) i By 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF JEWISH LITERATURE IN GENERAL: OF THE PUBLICATION, 
 PRESERVATION, COLLECTION, GENUINENESS, AND CANON- 
 ICAL CHARACTER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 Section 1.—General Considerations concerning 
 Jewish Interature. 
 
 ΤΡ a nation can only be held to be original and to possess an 
 original literature which from the lowest step of education 
 has raised itself by its own strength gradually upwards, 
 
 . has invented its own laws and religion, and the progressive 
 
 gradation of whose knowledge has never been interrupted 
 by aids from foreign learning, arts, and inventions, in 
 that case the Jews can pass for no original people and be 
 held to have no original literature. To be indebted to them- 
 selves alone, they ought from the commencement of their 
 education to have been shut up in a peculiar and strictly 
 circumscribed land and have lived remote from the influence 
 of all other people. Now they wandered about from their 
 -T B 
 
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 first rise, when they existed only at first in a small family, 
 as herdsmen, amidst various tribes; adopted from them 
 manners, ideas, and opinions, and were subjected to 
 an influence from them sometimes stronger, sometimes 
 weaker. Afterwards, in Egypt, the family grew up to be a 
 people, and although, as herdsmen (a base pursuit, to 
 Egyptian notions), not in the closest relations with the 
 Egyptians, yet touched by them in so many various ways 
 that Egyptian ideas, views, and habits must have necessarily 
 passed over to them. How otherwise came free-born Jews 
 on their exodus from Egypt to be in possession of so many 
 arts and trades, quite foreign to a merely nomadic people, 
 which they exercised in Arabia in the structure and adorn- 
 ment of their sacred tent? How knew they to work in 
 silver and gold, to grave jewels, and to display dexterity 
 in many other ways, which always presuppose long 
 practice ? How in the Desert of Arabia, on the first 
 occasion, could they have used animal-worship if they had 
 brought with them from Egypt no love for it? And 
 even supposing that an abode there of 430 years should 
 have given the shepherd-folk no Egyptian bias in all the 
 various points they were susceptible of, still Moses in- 
 terrupted the regular progress of their political and 
 intellectual education, and carried over the lights and in- 
 formation of an Egyptian scholar amongst them, through 
 his institutions and his laws. This agency effected a sort 
 of conflux of Egyptian with Hebrew mind, which, to 
 judge from the specimens in our possession, has left a per- 
 manent influence on the literature of the latter. 
 
 But what people was ever primitiveto such a degree as 
 we have supposed, or what nations, not merely of modern, 
 but of the most ancient times, could boast of having won 
 everything by unaided efforts? that their manners and 
 religion were ever free from foreign influences and their 
 
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING JEWISH LITERATURE 9 
 
 mind never fed and enlarged by imported ideas? It is 
 er.ough for originality if a people have never descended to 
 slavish imitation, but have dealt with their borrowed and 
 foreign notions in so prudent a manner that when mixed 
 and dissolved with their own stores the joint materials 
 should forma homogeneous whole; or should have given a 
 new nature to the foreign, and converted it to its own; or 
 should have stamped a peculiar and fixed character on its 
 mode of thinking, manners, and mental productions, and 
 adhered to the same with unchangeable firmness. 
 
 And in this sense were the Jews in their manners, 
 laws, religious and political constitution, and in their 
 entire literature, as far as we are acquainted with it, 
 original to the highest degree. ‚The type impressed on 
 them by Moses they retained even as late as the 
 Babylonian Captivity. The design their lawgiver was 
 enabled to form for them, that they nearly corresponded to, 
 and on this side at least they never surpassed his views, 
 hopes, and objects; and as far as a spirit of angularity 
 and stiffness, of obstinacy and pride, is concerned, they 
 possessed also a sort of originality. It was the design of 
 Moses, by means of political and religious institutions, to 
 raise his nation from its infancy, and in the period of youth 
 as to mind and learning to which he had raised it, it always 
 afterwards remained. Tothe preservation of the higher sorts 
 of knowledge he destined the priesthood, and they continued 
 also the property of that order, and culture and knowledge 
 were never much extended or general to the extinction of 
 the Jewish State. Like all nations at the lowest step of 
 civilisation, the Jews gave expression to their thought and 
 feeling merely through the medium of song and poesy ; 
 their language remained always to the end of their power 
 in the state most convenient to the poet, highly figurative 
 and vague. But to true prose, in which the meaning of 
 
 B 2 
 
4. INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 every phrase is fixed and which for the purposes of the 
 higher branches of knowledge and of pure science is in- 
 dispensable, their language only began to incline at the 
 end of their independence. At this time, too, the nation 
 itself was so deeply depressed through poverty, exhaus- 
 tion, and the illtreatment of haughty conquerors, its 
 internal strength was so sunk and broken, that hence- 
 forward even its poetry, heretofore quickened by high and 
 powerful genius, showed the loss of that life and force, and 
 when it was too late for the nation to hew out for itself 
 new paths, its political wisdom, far from surpassing that 
 of Moses, was seldom equal to it. Its philosophy consisted, 
 as with children and childlike nations, of proverbs, moral 
 saws, and riddles. Even their learned priesthood stood 
 with regard to intellect but a few steps higher than the 
 nation, and, with the advantage of all the wealth conferred 
 on them by Moses, never advanced as far as the cultivation 
 of the sciences. Their language was never more polished 
 nor fixed than that employed by Moses. Their historical 
 books, in the choice and relation of events, were distin- 
 guished by the partial and limited horizon of the order 
 itself, which regarded itself as the centre of the land and 
 of the nation. Every event was related only with regard 
 to themselves, to religious observances, feasts and sacrifices, 
 without a comprehensive view of the whole and without 
 regard to all kinds of remarkable political events; and 
 never did the Jewish historians (if from the still extant 
 scanty extracts we may judge of the spirit of the larger 
 annals, which indeed has abundantly displayed itself in the 
 former) advance further in the art of historical writing 
 than the Greeks a considerable time before Herodotus. 
 
 He who should expect, from a nation which had re- 
 mained so nearly in the state of its primitive organisation 
 and so little changed as to that of its intellect, a multi- 
 
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING JEWISH LITERATURE 5 
 
 farious literature of many aspects, or indeed erudition at 
 all, must, from unacquaintedness with other polite and un- 
 polished nations, be ignorant of what is possible to the 
 human mind in its various states and conditions and make 
 demands in which history will not bear him out. Nearly 
 in all respects did the Jews fall short of the hopes and 
 wishes of their lawgiver; was it likely that they should 
 have exceeded them in this? 
 
 Moses had not laboured to provide for a multifarious 
 and varied literature and the eventual introduction of real 
 erudition, nor was it indeed in his power unless he had 
 wished to polish his nation without paying any regard to 
 its then situation. Before all things he must have induced 
 the still rude tribes by new arrangements to make the 
 difficult step from the wandering life of the herdsman to 
 the fixed state of the agriculturist; but, as to the rest, to 
 leave it to favourable circumstances to determine whether 
 at some future time they may not burst the bonds of the 
 firm, strongly entangled and intricate civil polity, by 
 which he sought to hold them together, abolish the priest- 
 hood as ordered by him, and, by the free admission of all 
 sorts of discoveries and knowledge, to make the second 
 great step towards the repute of a highly polished and 
 enlightened nation. Had not Egypt with its priesthood 
 been the great pattern set before him by Moses in his 
 legislation, the very necessity of the times would have 
 compelled him to such an institution. In their youth, all 
 the nations both of the ancient and of the modern world 
 required a guardian to deliberate on the results of 
 experience and the steps gained in the higher branches of 
 knowledge, as on the first dawn of their future wisdom 
 and native science. As long as a nation was not adult— 
 that is, as long as it only possessed single inventions, and 
 but a small number of the higher secrets of knowledge— 
 
6 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 and the great mass continued still too rude and wild to be 
 susceptible of more than common ideas or equal to the 
 conservation of certain more exalted views which only 
 select persons could afford ; as long as only a few persons 
 were capable of comprehending the whole stores of 
 knowledge, and the state of population would allow no 
 superfluity of its members to devote themselves to the 
 advancement of the arts and sciences; so long did the situa- 
 tion of the world and of humanity require a chosen few of 
 noble minds to become the receptacle of the fruits of know- 
 ledge hitherto won, and to transmit them in their families. 
 Therefore also usually neither the prudence and compre- 
 hensive glance of the wisest men of a nation nor their law- 
 giver has established such a body; but much rather the 
 necessity of the times, that benevolent provider for the weal 
 of humanity in its most different states, has spontaneously 
 enforced it, and that too amongst nations differing the 
 most from one another and placed beyond the possibility 
 of imitation. Were no measures taken, by means of a 
 peculiar order, for the preservation of the steps of know- 
 ledge won, they would soon be again lost, and the light of 
 the divinity imparted to wise men and great inventors for 
 the use of succeeding generations would have been lent to 
 the world quite in vain and nations backward in this 
 respect must have continued in perpetual infancy. Still, 
 however, a learned order of the, possessors of all knowledge 
 was adapted only to the earliest stages of education ; as soon 
 as this is passed, such an order became extremely mis- 
 chievous: it checked the progress of knowledge and pre- 
 vented it from effecting the general diffusion of lght 
 amongst the entire people. It was certainly not amongst 
 the least causes of Greek enlightenment and of the bloom 
 and greatness of the Greek mind that followed thereupon, 
 that the rise of its culture occurred in the times of more 
 
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING JEWISH LITERATURE 7 
 
 adult humanity, when such an order might soon be dis- 
 pensed with. With the Jews on the contrary, after the 
 regulations shaped by Moses, all knowledge was sacer- 
 dotal, and in it no layman was initiated! and before they 
 attained to that strength and ripeness of mind to enable 
 them to abate this monopoly of the priesthood, and to 
 participate generally in the education of Moses, they 
 ceased to be an independent nation. 
 
 As long as the law which forbade all intercourse with 
 foreigners was binding, so long, under the most favourable 
 circumstances, would the attainments of the Jews fail to 
 exceed a very moderate height. By this means all foreign 
 inventions were lost for them; their ideas were not in- 
 creased by the knowledge of strangers, nor their under- 
 standing enlarged; on the contrary, they fell under the 
 dominion of a certain pride that mastered them like all 
 the exclusive nations of old and new times, which regarded 
 their land and nation as the first and most important in 
 the world, and ended in a narrow contempt of everything 
 foreign. Deprived of the influx of new discoveries from 
 without, and within extremely narrowed in their notions 
 by the order of priests, the great mass retained always its 
 childish ideas taken from the early centuries; even the 
 education of Moses was confined to a part of the priest- 
 hood and a few distinguished individuals besides them, 
 
 1 If we will not lose ourselves in conjectures, but adhere to what 
 may be traced in Jewish history, the education of the laity did not go 
 beyond music and poetry. In these consisted the education in the 
 schools of the prophets (Hichorn’s General Library of Biblical Litera- 
 ture, Part x. § 1098), and in the order of prophets of the king- 
 dom of Israel (same work, Part iv. ὃ 198 ff.); and further than this 
 we find no traces in the ‘ Collection of Usages,’ under which denomina- 
 tion Nachtigal has brought together all the information possible 
 concerning the educational institutions among the ancient Hebrews 
 (in Eichorn’s Library, Part ix. $ 420 ff.). 
 
8 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 who raised themselves high above their contemporaries and 
 the great mass by the extraordinary strength of their 
 intellect. Even the great idea of a single invisible Being 
 as Creator and Ruler of the world—the finest peculiarity of 
 the Jews, and which the sages of Greece and of Rome 
 might well envy them—was a point of the wisdom of the 
 Jewish lawgiver, not of the whole people, for whom such 
 an idea (as we learn from history) was far too spiritual 
 and sublime, as far down as the exile to Babylon. Already 
 in the desert of Arabia they discovered their propensity to 
 animal worship, which they had learnt from the Egyptians, 
 and in the land itself to the polytheism of the Canaanites, 
 from which they were at times merely restrained by force, 
 and always returned to it as soon as that force was with- 
 drawn, and whose inaptitude as thinking beings was 
 only perceptible toa few great minds. It was only through 
 and after the impressions wrought upon the nation by 
 foreigners in its exile that its understanding by increased 
 ideas and knowledge became sufficiently expanded and 
 enlightened fully to comprehend this exalted notion, and 
 never afterwards by example or pretence whatsoever to 
 suffer itself to be deprived of it. 
 
 And any advantages from these which might have 
 resulted to education and learning were counteracted by 
 the situation and fortunes of the Jews. As long as they 
 wandered about as herdsmen along the free pastures of the 
 East, they were merely fitted to retain their traditions 
 and pastoral poetry. Under the forming hand, however, 
 of Moses, they were accustomed to much which must 
 necessarily precede the first steps in education ; but soon 
 after these preparations, during the times of the wandering 
 and hero-feats under the Judges, they again retrograded. 
 The wild freedom of the war and battle-song may have 
 grown in strength and power under these circumstances, 
 
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING JEWISH LITERATURE 9 
 
 but the mind of the nation (as far as the term is applicable 
 to a people in this state) declined both in genius and re- 
 finement. The Jews forgot even their dexterity in the 
 handicrafts which they had brought with them out of 
 Egypt, and Solomon was obliged soon after, for the build- 
 ing of his temple and the works of art connected with it, 
 to send for foreign artists. After long-continued poverty 
 they attained at last a certain degree of wealth, and its 
 splendid consequences were soon displayed amongst the 
 Jews by the rapid rise of the arts which without wealth 
 can never flourish. David had much enriched his treasury 
 by the spoils of many of the nations conquered by him, 
 and which, according to the ancient wild war-right, he 
 had caused thoroughly to be plundered. It had soon after 
 by means of the flourishing trade on the Red Sea ad- 
 ditional accretions, and Solomon came to the quiet pos- 
 session of the treasures inherited from his father. Under 
 his government all the arts of luxury soon made their 
 appearance amongst the Jews: a proof of the capacity of 
 every nation, provided favourable circumstances be only 
 afforded it. Now under his encouragement and the sup- 
 port of his riches, works of art were wrought, temple and 
 palace erected, and the capital embellished with as much 
 taste as was to be expected ere the Greeks flourished. 
 But the glory of the kingdom, together with that of all 
 the arts, ceased suddenly with his reign. Even before 
 the expiry of the reign of Solomon, the public treasures 
 were exhausted, and the otherwise only moderate means 
 of individual citizens consumed through participation 
 in the court luxury, and afterwards through royal exac- 
 tions, and the entire State, through all ranks, enfeebled. 
 The dismembering of the State which followed, and the 
 incessantly destructive wars both from within and without, 
 sank both peoples in the deepest poverty, and from the 
 
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 absence of all other sources of help down to the lowest 
 political weakness, which subverted at the same time the 
 national intellect. Thus after Solomon internal disorders 
 and wars with powerful neighbours completed the impos- 
 sibility of regeneration. History, however, shows that in 
 the case of great and powerful kingdoms even all-destruc- 
 tive wars cannot entirely cast down the monuments of 
 knowledge once firmly erected, nor can the arts and 
 sciences that already flourish be quite annihilated; but with 
 a nation yet weak in intellect and political strength they 
 kill the early bud to which the time for its expansion has 
 been denied. 
 
 SECTION 2.—Importance of Hebrew Literature. 
 
 These remarks are not intended to disparage the 
 monuments which we still possess of the Hebrews. He 
 who despises them because they descend to us from a 
 nation which never reached a high degree of civilisa- 
 tion, and whose mental capacity was exercised only on 
 one side, such a man must manifest ingratitude for the 
 weightiest services, or be so unjust as to require from 
 the first weak glimmering of the dawn the broad daylight 
 of noon. 
 
 Much more will every free and impartial reader who 
 has a taste in general for writings from Asia (a country so 
 little known to us), and also from such early times, be 
 powerfully attracted to them, both from their contents and 
 their primitive and original spirit, and never lay them 
 down without a feeling of reverence and gratitude for the 
 fortunate chance which has preserved them. Should we 
 not even be disposed to regard them as the archives of the 
 most rational religion of antiquity, in which we may trace 
 the gradual rise of the human understanding up to the 
 
IMPORTANCE OF HEBREW LITERATURE 11 
 
 sublime doctrine of one God, and the contest of polytheism 
 for so many centuries with that great principle, still in 
 numerous points of view the Jewish Scriptures are of the 
 greatest importance. In them we find a rich collection of 
 true national poesy, which every judge of that kind of 
 composition must hold in high honour, and amongst it 
 kinds of which, even amidst the much richer remains of 
 Greek literature, scarcely anything of importance has sur- 
 vived the spoil of time. Oracles, for instance, all nations 
 possessed up to a certain point of their civilisation ; and 
 who had more of them than Greece of the oldest date ? and 
 yet, from their abundance, only inconsiderable fragments 
 remain to us; of the Hebrew oracles, on the contrary, a 
 considerable number of entire prophecies are preserved. 
 Who would not give a part of Pindar’s songs of triumph for 
 his lost religious hymns, seeing that nearly all the Greek 
 poems of this kind have perished? Of the Jews we possess 
 ancient temple songs, in a tone of solemn devotion and of 
 the highest originality. And no one, with a true feeling 
 for poetry and the power to realise the transactions of 
 bygone days, has ever read this and other species of 
 Hebrew poetry without admiring the old Oriental spirit 
 which they breathe, and rejoicing that we are at least 
 acquainted with it, though not in a satisfactory degree, 
 from the samples of an Eastern people. Another cir- 
 cumstance of high value attached to the greater part of 
 these remains is their grey antiquity. The most belong 
 to times of which not a line besides is extant. The oldest 
 Hebrew historians existed for some years before the ac- 
 quaintance of the Greeks with the art of writing, and their 
 latest historian was about contemporary with Herodotus, 
 the father of Grecian history. Moreover, the Hebrew his- 
 torical and poetical books, as primitive works of Asiatic 
 intellect, are the most valuable archives for the history of 
 
12 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 human development, for according to tradition and other 
 sources the human race sprang up on the soil of Asia, and 
 worked itself thereon slowly upwards. They contain like- 
 wise, not merely the history of the Jews and a picture of 
 their culture and civilisation, but, by means of their collec- 
 tions of the proverbs of their predecessors, aids towards 
 the history of the entire human race. Where else were 
 the books which preserve for us such pure sayings of the 
 childhood of humanity losing itself in the mists of time ; 
 or the monuments which teach an equally fine philosophy 
 concerning the origin of the universe, or are able in general 
 to supply the place of the Hebrew library in the history of 
 mankind? How much poorer in important and credible 
 information would our otherwise sufficiently defective his- 
 tories of the states and people of antiquity be without the 
 writings we inherit from the Hebrews! And were it 
 fully within the purpose of the present work, it would be 
 possible to place in the clearest light the importance of 
 the yet extant fragments of Hebrew literature by an 
 enumeration of the amount of multiplied information 
 which lies scattered up and down in it, and which we 
 owe to it alone. Goguet! and Gatterer? have made a 
 fine beginning for such a work; let these speak for it 
 instead of myself. 
 
 Instead, then, of scoff and disparagement, let us 
 rather offer thanks to fortune for these yet extant blossoms 
 of Oriental mind, lamenting, however, at the same 
 moment that time, which has dealt so gently with so 
 much literary refuse, has swallowed up so many of the 
 most precious gems of literature, to which the Jewish 
 memorials certainly belong, and yet wondering on the 
 
 ' Goguet, Concerning the Origin of the Arts and Sciences amongst 
 
 the most Ancient People. Paris: 1758. 
 2 Gatterer, History of the World, Parti. Göttingen: 1764-72. 
 
IMPORTANCE OF HEBREW LITERATURE 19 
 
 other side that so much has missed its gnawing tooth. 
 Egyptians and Chaldeans, Phoenicians and Hebrews, the 
 four most ancient civilised peoples, played for a long time 
 near each other distinguished parts in the theatre of 
 nations, and left to their posterity many written monu- 
 ments of their civilisation and ancient splendour. None 
 amongst them all had to pass through a series of greater 
 and more universally destructive changes than the 
 Hebrews ; they were torn, after the old wild fashion by 
 their haughty conquerors, from their habitations and 
 transplanted to a foreign land, and ceased here, for a time 
 dispersed amongst strange tribes, to be even a peculiar 
 people. ‘The former, however, even to their names, have 
 disappeared, whilst these have survived their State, 
 though scattered throughout the world, and are after the 
 lapse of centuries a distinguishable people. Of the former, 
 again, all the monuments of their literature to its very 
 last fragments are lost; or, if some broken bits remain, so 
 wretched and unconnected as not at all to diminish the 
 loss of the rest; of the Jews, on the contrary, an entire 
 library of the most important and ancient writers is still 
 extant—so ancient that the works of the Greeks in com- 
 parison degenerate down to modern productions. As 
 with the Jews, so also in Egypt, Phoenicia, and Babylon, 
 all the higher branches of knowledge, as well as the most 
 important writings, were entrusted to the guardian care 
 of the priests; and their entire literature! followed the 
 fate of the priesthood and of the temples in all the three 
 States. As soon as the priesthood was abolished, ensued 
 incontinently the destruction of all the hereditary intel- 
 lectual stores of the nation and of the fruits of the industry 
 
 ' Meiner’s History of the Rise, Progress, and Decay of the Sciences 
 
 in Greece and Rome, Part i. § 53, contains a fine number of instances 
 of the kind collected from the ancient history of Greece. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 and experience of many centuries ; as soon as their temples 
 were destroyed, all the works of literature were buried 
 beneath the ruins. The preservation of so many and of 
 such considerable fragments of the Jewish literature under 
 like and in part more widely-wasting catastrophes than 
 befell these people appears absolutely a miracle of time. 
 What is the natural explanation of this phenomenon ? 
 
 SECTION 3.—Publication of New Writings amongst the 
 Ancient Hebrews. 
 
 It was through all antiquity the custom to deposit all 
 works of the intellect— as laws, contracts, inventions, and 
 even mighty works of literature—in a holy place, par- 
 ticularly in the temples of the divinities, and, as works the 
 fruits of their own inspirations, to entrust them also again 
 to their protection for preservation and transmission to 
 posterity. Such conduct was held to be a manifestation 
 of the author’s gratitude to his fostering divinity; as a 
 means of procuring more respect to his work through the 
 sacred nature of its place of preservation and as the best 
 security against its early destruction. In particular also 
 was it usual with nations who had appointed the priest- 
 orders as the guardians of all the fruits of their experience, 
 as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Chaldeans, to place 
 their writings, whether of priests or of laymen, in the 
 subterranean vaults of their temples. 
 
 According to this custom also, Moses commanded his 
 laws to be kept in the holiest place of that tabernacle 
 which he had constructed in the desert of Arabia, by 
 the Ark of the Covenant, and made thereby the God of 
 his nation to be, as it were, the guardian, upholder, and 
 establisher of the laws which had emanated, as he held, 
 
 1 Deuteronomy xxxi. 9, 26. 
 
PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 15 
 
 from Himself. His example was followed by others, and 
 so the foundation was laid of a library of sacred writings, 
 of whose enlargement in even our scanty books of Jewish 
 history we find some traces. The information concerning 
 the covenant which Joshua made with the Jews before his 
 death, and the mode in which he inculcated the exact 
 observance of their national laws, was laid in the hoiy 
 place by the side of the Laws of God.? The agreement 
 of Saul, Samuel laid before Jehovah in the sanctuary ; ὅ 
 and the genealogical table of the Jews, that part of history 
 so important in the eyes of all Orientalists, was, at least at 
 later periods, preserved in the temple.* Whether, however, 
 this national library, during the remaining times of the 
 State existence, was increased by the addition of new 
 writings ; whether the Jewish chronicles, the oracles of the 
 prophets, and every other kind of intellectual production 
 before the Babylonian exile were placed by the side of the 
 Covenant, and that their formal publication consisted in 
 such deposition in this holy place, which so many learned 
 men adopt as indisputable*®—to decide these questions, 
 since proof from old historians fails us, we are, alas! some 
 centuries too late. 
 
 But probably it was so. If stories, which, through oral 
 tradition, have acquired a fabulous form, spring, however, 
 always from a ground of truth, we may perhaps venture, 
 from the reports of temple archives—of which some affirm 
 the rescue by Jeremiah on the conflagration of the temple, 
 others consign together with the temple to the flames ὅ--- 
 
 1 iepa ypaupara, iepoı Aoyoı, signified also with other nations their 
 most ancient writings. 
 
 2 Joshua xxiv. 26. 
 
 31 Samuel x. 26. 
 
 * Michaelis’ Law of Moses, § 51. 
 
 * Rich. Simon, Histoire critique du N. T. p. 30. 
 ° Epiphanius, De Pond. et Mens. c. iv. p. 162 (Opp. t. ii.), where, 
 
16 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 to infer the existence of a collection of holy books in the 
 temple; and was not, after the Babylonian exile, what 
 still remained of the writings of the old times collected 
 and, at a date soon after the foundation of the new State 
 on the banks of the Jordan, a library formed in the newly- 
 built temple, of which traces spring up even in the history 
 of its destruction by the Romans?! And is it not natural 
 to conclude that this was only an imitation of an old 
 temple library of the times before the exile, of which the 
 memory after that event was not yet extinguished? The 
 example of Moses, whom, even in matters which he had 
 not expressly commanded, they adopted so willingly as 
 their pattern, the advantage therein of every author, the 
 unanimity of ancient nations, even of those who had no 
 established order of priests, in this practice, the late tra- 
 ditions concerning it, and the similar institution after the 
 exile, raise the conjecture of a temple library at Jerusalem, 
 in which the most important writings of the Jews before 
 the exile were to be found, to a high degree of probability. 
 
 SECTION 4.— Preservation of the still extant Jewish Writings. 
 
 In the meantime, whether we adopt or reject the theory, 
 little is gained or lost for the history of the Hebrew books 
 which are still extant. Was ever such a temple library 
 in existence, still our present Hebrew writings are not to 
 be considered as immediately descended to us therefrom, 
 
 however, his faulty text requires the following correction—d1ö οὐδὲ ἐν 
 τῳ Ἄρων ἄνετεθησαν, TOUT ἐστιν ἐν tn τὴς διαθηκης κιβωτῳ. Of the 
 tradition respecting the books burned with the temple and afterwards 
 restored by Esdras, see Augustin. De Mirabilibus, lib. 2, fine ; Basil. ap. 
 Froben (Opp. t. iii.), p. 532, ‘Esdras, Dei sacerdos, combustam a Chal- 
 dis in Archivis Templi restituit legem.’ 
 
 1 Josephus, De Bello Judaico, c. 17; Antig. lib. vii. c. 6; De Vita, 
 § 75; Roland, De Spolüs Templi Hierosol. p. 51 not., p. 76 not. 
 
PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 17 
 
 or as booty rescued from the flames of the temple. We 
 are more indebted for them to fortune than to any inten- 
 tional preservation. 
 
 The story of Jeremiah’s having removed to some place 
 of security the holy books, together with other sacred 
 property, before the burning of the temple, is indeed a 
 mere conjecture, employed for the purpose of completing 
 our accounts of the fate of our Hebrew writings, and of 
 connecting them with the older temple library, concerning 
 which the accounts were too well authenticated to admit of 
 doubt. Without it, I can well imagine, the preservation 
 of our Jewish monuments must have seemed to the inventor 
 of the tradition inexplicable, because no copy of them was 
 supposed to exist out of the temple; or the story was in- 
 vented with the pious view of giving to the new temple 
 the respectability and sacred character of the old. Had 
 Jeremiah really rescued the temple library, and was our 
 inheritance of Hebrew literature to be derived from the 
 treasures there discovered, it would have been, in all pro- 
 bability, richer, more manifold, and comprehensive. In 
 the temple lav, probably, annals at large of the kingdom, 
 and our present historical books are either extracts there- 
 from, or abridgments of other larger historical works which 
 approached the temple annals in regard to fulness and 
 compass. In the temple there was preserved, it is likely, 
 a far greater and more complete collection of prophecies 
 than we possess, since our present one, with the exception 
 of the more perfect prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 
 the other prophets who lived after the overthrow of the 
 State, consists partly of merely unconnected fragments of 
 prophetical poesy, and partly of pieces confined to the 
 short space of a few generations. From these circum- 
 stances we are at liberty to conclude that through the re- 
 maining far greater spaces of time there was no deficiency 
 
 C 
 
18 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 of prophecies, that they were, however, destroyed along 
 with the temple, and that we should have lost all the 
 prophetic poesy of the Hebrews had not accident preserved 
 for us a few books of prophetic anthology or extracts. Of 
 proper temple songs—of which, with a people so rich in 
 poetry, for their numerous festivals, their religious repasts, 
 and other solemnities, at which song and dance were the 
 chief points, there must have been a great supply during 
 the existence of the temple, and the various feasts therein 
 celebrated—we possess but a small number, which, more- 
 over, appear partly to have been composed in modern 
 times, and those subsequent to the exile. Therefore the 
 series of Hebrew literature downwards must have been far 
 richer had we possessed an ancient temple library rescued 
 by Jeremiah. 
 
 Much more probable is it that our present very poor 
 collection was preserved dispersed in separate pieces 
 amongst private persons; and that on the restoration of 
 the Jewish State, after the conclusion of the exile, the 
 ancient temple library, as far as could be accomplished 
 by the collection of the dispersed separate writings, was 
 re-established ; and that, consequently, to mere chance 
 and to Cyrus we are obliged for our fragments of the 
 Hebrew literature. Had Cyrus withheld his consent to 
 the planting of a new colony on the Jordan, and the con- 
 struction of a new temple, these fragments would have 
 never been brought together, and the absence of the 
 occasion for founding a sacred library (that is, the absence 
 of a temple, which according to the notions of antiquity 
 behoved also to be adorned with holy books), time, and 
 the continually decreasing familiarity with the language, 
 mode of thinking and manners of the old world, would 
 have deprived us of the little which we still possess. 
 
 All the circumstances at least lead to this hypothesis. 
 
PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 19 
 
 A part of the present extant writings of the Jews existed 
 once, there are evident tokens, in numerous copies, and 
 were universally read. Of the laws of Moses—and, since 
 these could scarcely ever have been separated from the 
 rest of his works, of the writings of Moses in general— 
 many copies were indispensable, particularly after Jehosha- 
 phat established tribunals in single cities, which were 
 bound to interpret the Mosaical laws. It is also natural 
 to suppose that religious Jews in good circumstances must 
 have had copies made for themselves of their law-book in 
 order to possess as their own property the greatest jewel of 
 the nation. Is it not, then, possible that copies of the 
 Mosaical writings in the hands of the judges, of their 
 families, or of other private persons, may have survived 
 the exile? And since, as works of the greatest man known 
 to the people in the days of antiquity, they would be 
 esteemed above all other productions of the human mind, 
 and through reverence copied with far greater exactness 
 than other writings either contemporary or of recent 
 appearance, the copy of them received into the new 
 temple library after the Babylonian exile would have 
 been far more perfect and its text reached us in a 
 state more free from corruption than the other Jewish 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The books of Samuel, of Kings, and of the Chronicles, 
 are summaries taken from the complete State annals which 
 are occasionally quoted, and, from their contents, must 
 have been intended as manuals of the history of the Jewish 
 monarchy, and according to this destination have been 
 undoubtedly current in numerous copies. The lives of 
 David and of Solomon were at first extant as an entire 
 work, of which we now possess two different editions, 
 whereof each is treated in its own manner and enlarged 
 by its new editor. Abstracting the new matter introduced, 
 
 | c 2 
 
20 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 we shall find that the original work was so cast as to be 
 adapted to the general reading of the people; whatever 
 might offend the royal house, all scandalous scenes in the 
 lives of David and Solomon, were passed over in silence. 
 This doubly edited work of the lives of the two kings was 
 placed at the head of two chronicles, one of the kingdom 
 of Israel, one of that of Judah, which again were so 
 epitomised as to appear meant to be a popular text-book. 
 It is evident from all sides that works of that nature imply 
 the existence of numerous copies. And if Isaiah, the 
 lesser prophets and the Psalms arose from a collection of 
 prophetic and lyrical poesy, as from a closer examination 
 of their contents is evident, then nothing is more probable 
 than that they came into the hands of the compiler of our 
 Old Testament in the shape of private manuscripts and 
 may serve as a new ground for the conjecture that before 
 the exile many of our now extant Jewish books circulated 
 in numerous copies. 
 
 And how, without this supposition, can the relation in 
 which the authors of the Old Testament stand with regard 
 to one another be explained ? Often they are in the rela- 
 tion to each other of original and copy, and if the con- 
 nexion between them is not so close, they still borrow 
 figures and expressions from one another—one alludes or 
 refers to the other or inserts whole passages from him. 
 
 Finally the present condition of the Hebrew text 
 favours this conjecture. Since the restoration of their 
 State under Cyrus, the Jews have watched with an in- 
 credible care (which may be partly superstition, partly an 
 excessive reverence for the ancient works of their nation) 
 over their sacred scriptures, and sought to guard them from 
 all corruption, either accidental or from perverse intention. 
 They copied them through all the centuries through which 
 we can follow their pains, with an exactitude which, 
 
PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 21 
 
 though it could neither remove nor render impossible mis- 
 takes in single words and consonants, yet necessarily 
 prevented the occurrence of great gaps and omissions. 
 And yet it may be shown, to a high degree of critical pro- 
 bability, that they have suffered in more than matters of 
 mere trifling moment: passages of greater or less length 
 are lost; others are transposed, and so corrupted as to be 
 proof against restoration by the highest degree of critical 
 genius. Those errors, however, existed in the manuscripts 
 of the oldest Greek translators, who lived but a few 
 centuries later than the compilers of our Old Testament ; 
 and in case the original Hebrew manuscripts, in the few 
 centuries between Ezra and the Greek translators, as in 
 the many between them and us, were copied with the same 
 superstitious care, as appears probable, so the same faults 
 were, it is likely, to be found in the manuscripts which 
 were used at the collection of the Old Testament. Did 
 our Hebrew Scriptures originate from the copy in the 
 first temple, it were natural to suppose them derived to us 
 from the manuscripts of the authors, or from one of 
 the first copies made from them, and in that case a far 
 richer and purer text was to be expected. Its present 
 condition and defects, for which no remedy is now to be 
 found, appear to result from very corrupted manuscripts, 
 such as private copies would probably be, which were not 
 made with that anxious nicety which began only after the 
 Babylonian captivity. 
 
 Section 5.—Collection of the Hebrew Scriptures after 
 the Babyloman Haile. 
 
 Soon after the termination of the Babylonian exile and 
 the foundation of the new State in Palestine, all the 
 remains of the ancient writings in the possession of the 
 
22 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 exiles were collected, and in order to give to the newly- 
 erected second temple all the advantages of the first, a 
 library composed of these remnants of the Jewish litera- 
 ture was founded, to which we give the general name of 
 the Old Testament, The existence of a temple library 
 after the exile is undeniable, for in still later times an 
 ancient temple copy is spoken of, and perhaps was even 
 carried by Titus in triumph to Rome. Ifa temple library 
 existed, would not its re-establishment be contemporary 
 with the completion of the new temple? Would not Ezra 
 have commenced, and Nehemiah and other Hebrew 
 patriots have enlarged, it? Moreover, all the Jews sent 
 from time to time from the Persian court to Palestine 
 exerted themselves to give solemnity to their divine 
 service. Under such circumstances, the tradition of the 
 Jews (taken at large indeed unsafe) which assigned to Ezra 
 and Nehemiah the collections of the scriptures still extant 
 in their time, cannot be denied all grounds of probability. 
 Still, however, no careful inquirer, and no one anxious for 
 historical truth, will give full credit to the fables of the 
 later Jews concerning a ‘ Synagoga magna,’ and its multi- 
 plied transactions both learned and unlearned!; but would 
 not true facts lie at the bottom of the information we 
 have respecting it (as is the case with most legends of the 
 kind), and which Jewish wit alone would have clothed in 
 romance ? Does Ezra, perhaps, who properly as a priest 
 should have been named from his office 713, bear the name 
 of ‘the writer’ (ὩΒῚ 8) because by means of his exertions 
 about the holy books of his nation he did good service which 
 distinguished and adorned him above the duties of his 
 
 !Rau, De Synagoga magna, has absolutely demonstrated that the 
 greatest part of the information of the Jews concerning it bears the 
 stamp of improbability; but the whole tradition must still have its 
 ground in a fact, otherwise it would never have come into existence. 
 
TEMPLE LIBRARY 23 
 
 priest’s office?! And did not Nehemiah, according to an 
 early recorded tradition, found a holy library in the temple ? 
 Should all this intelligence be rejected because Josephus 
 does not repeatit? Does he not speak here and there of 
 the library of the second temple ? Does he not mention 
 the merit of Ezra and Nehemiah in its completion and 
 embellishment? To the last belonged, according to the 
 universal opinion of the ancient world, a collection of 
 sacred books: was it necessary that he should mention by 
 name every ornamental portion? Or does an otherwise 
 early recorded tradition first become authentic when men- 
 tioned by Josephus? How many tales current merely 
 through misunderstandings and credulity does he repeat 
 with a sincere countenance? And has he not introduced 
 into his work much later traditions, particularly in his 
 history subsequent to the Babylonian exile for the first 
 time, as far as we know, as true historical fragments, 
 although they wear much more the appearance of fable 
 than of truth ? 
 
 I wish to decide nothing, but I cannot, with the satis- 
 faction of my historical feeling, declare a tradition to be so 
 remote from possibility in whose favour, type of ancient 
 times (the old temple library), even temporal circumstances, 
 the situation of the Jews, and the objects of the founders 
 and reformers in Palestine speak so loudly. 
 
 Even the doubts which in modern times have been 
 brought forward against this representation appear to me 
 of little moment. ‘ We cannot admit’ (says a new op- 
 ponent of the same?) ‘that the Jews in the time of Ezra 
 
 1 With this also the other meaning of the word 49D is well con- 
 sistent, which below (§ 497) is fully explained. The two meanings to- 
 gether are required to exhaust the idea. 
 
 2 In the Library of the most recent Theological and Philosophical 
 Literature (Zurich : 1784-8), Part i. period i. § 176. 
 
24 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 entertained such exalted notions of the rise and divine 
 character of their ancient books as in the days of Josephus 
 and in all subsequent times. And without this extra- 
 ordinary veneration they would scarcely have taken the 
 measures for so solemn a collection of the remnants of 
 their literature and provided for their preservation in a 
 holy place, since not only the laws of Moses, the psalms, 
 the oracles and religious expositions of the prophets, 
 _but also collections of philosophical sentences, extracts 
 from chronicles, an idyl and the story of Esther and 
 Mardocheeus (a production whose object was rather to 
 give pleasure than instruction), are to be found therein. 
 What people even thought of gathering all their national 
 books—the newest not excepted if they are sufficiently 
 well known—to prevent them from being lost, as if 
 from that epoch no more were to appear? If it be 
 said that the Jews saw that the days of the prophets 
 were past, I ask how they knew that in the times of 
 Malachi. And how came also so many writings into this 
 collection which are neither oracles nor have any relation 
 thereto ?’ : 
 
 This objection scarcely arose in old times. The 
 collection consisted of a deposit in a holy place, in the 
 temple: to this belonged no unprecedented character, it 
 was the imitation of ancient custom, some attention to the 
 necessities of the time and some obedience to its signs, which 
 directed attention to the adornment of a temple which 
 had risen again out of its ashes. The whole undertaking 
 required no long previous attention as to whether the 
 writings to be deposited in the temple were holy or 
 divine ; for in early times the ancient archives of a people 
 were all looked upon as holy and divine, and even the 
 Greeks described as holy and divine many sentences and 
 traditions either because they were really old or held to be 
 
TEMPLE LIBRARY 25 
 
 such.! It was not necessary to employ any previous 
 examination as to whether all the writings which it was 
 determined to deposit in a sacred place were of like 
 contents and value; for the old world used to preserve 
 in holy places, not merely oracles and religious writings, 
 but also all the other works of the intellect by whatever 
 names they might be distinguished. Such was the place 
 assigned by the seven and other sages of Greece for the 
 reception of their apophthegms, enigmas, and riddles. 
 Here also the Egyptian, Phoenician, and Babylonian priests 
 placed their historical works, and the latter their astro- 
 nomical observations, as did the former their receipts or 
 lists of household medicines, and others other kinds of the 
 works of intellect. When the determination was formed 
 to restore everything which had once existed, it became 
 necessary to think of re-establishing the ancient sacred 
 library, or, since it was impossible to recover the entire 
 store of ancient writings, and, after the lapse of a half- 
 century, even to show what writings were once contained 
 in the great temple library, to think of the restoration of 
 a library for the reception of all the ancient (that is, holy) 
 books which were yet to be met with, in order to render 
 it as like to the first, which had perished, as possible. To 
 this was added the account of the recent settlement of the 
 Hebrews on the Jordan, of the first constitution and sub- 
 sequent reformations of this colony and of the origin of 
 the feast Purim, because with the ancients it was gene- 
 rally usual to consign a work immediately after its appear- 
 
 ! So with the Chinese the ‘ Ring’ are only holy or (according to the 
 expression of the Jesuits) canonical books as far as they are national 
 archives ; and if their respect for them go so far as consecration, they 
 only follow therein the leaning of many nations, who convert all their 
 national traditions into divine revelations, whereby, through mistake, 
 
 they perplex altogether an ancient representation which belongs to 
 _ the childhood of the nation. 
 
26 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ance to the care of the Divinity. Ezra, perhaps, began 
 the collection, Nehemiah carried it on, and perhaps for 
 some space afterwards other Hebrew patriots; but for 
 many centuries before the birth of Christ its further 
 increase was stopped: it was for a long time previously a 
 single entire and concluded work. He, then, who can still 
 ask, What nation ever thought of gathering all its national 
 writings down to the very last, which were, however, 
 sufficiently known ? must have accustomed himself to 
 regard things merely in the light of modern times and be 
 ignorant how difficult it was with the ancients to save 
 even a newly-published work from quick destruction, since 
 a few copies only could be provided at great cost ? Or he 
 who can ask whether the collection was made in the 
 opinion that from that epoch no further writings were to 
 appear, does not consider that for the most part mere 
 accidents, even in modern times, are sufficient to check the 
 increase of a public collection of archives; or he has merely 
 thrown out this query for the sake of asking a great deal. 
 
 Shortly after the exile (proceeds the latest opponent of 
 this idea) ‘ the authors of the Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and of 
 the “ Song of Songs,” denied to be Solomon’s, may un- 
 doubtedly have been living. How, then, could the com- 
 pilers have taken these books not for Solomon’s work, 
 -and neither by a change of the superscription nor by 
 added indices have pointed out the place to which both 
 belonged?’ They did neither, because they did not wish 
 to destroy the deception. The name of Solomon, the 
 Preacher, belonged to poetry, and did any one, in the 
 ancient times, from the hymns of Orpheus downwards to 
 the latest poetical works, where any importance was 
 attached to the true name of the author, ever permit him- 
 self to add to the name of the famous man in whose 
 mouth everything was put (without exactly perpetrating 
 
TEMPLE LIBRARY 27 
 
 a fraud) the name also of the real author? And have 
 not the compilers (to judge from other marks) always 
 refrained from making any changes whatever in the dis- 
 covered writings, even to the small matter of the inscrip- 
 tions (section 532 below). And even were this not the 
 case, ın what way is it to be demonstrated that the real 
 authors of the Song of Songs and of the Preacher were 
 known by name to the compilers ? 
 
 _ ‘But shortly after the exile, the older sources from 
 which the book of Samuel and the books of Kings and 
 Chronicles were taken, were undoubtedly still in exist- 
 ence ; did indeed the extracts which were new, and far 
 less yenerable, obtain a place in the temple library and 
 these sources not?’ Truly, indeed, would they have gotten 
 such place, but certainly not alone, but in company, if the 
 more ancient annals had survived the Babylonian exile. 
 But probably they had long perished, and only short 
 summaries, drawn from them in early times, had, in the 
 hands of private persons, escaped the depredations of 
 time. 
 
 ‘It is true’ (concludes the author in his objections) 
 ‘already in the second book of the Maccabees the tradition 
 is mentioned, which purported to be found in certain 
 writings, that Nehemiah was the collector of the writings 
 of the Kings and Prophets, and of the gifts of the kings; 
 but what fables are related at the same time out of these 
 same books about the sacred fire and the covenant!’ 
 What critical inquirer would not be far from defending 
 such fables as truths ? But would he dare on account of 
 some fables to break the staff over all the information con- 
 tained in an author, without exception? And what judg- 
 ment must be passed upon Herodotus, Livy, and all 
 historians, who have recorded old traditions, which con- 
 sist always of a mixture of truth and falsehood, if they 
 
28 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 are to be treated according to these principles? And 
 should we venture, in the case of an author in other 
 respects fabulous, absolutely to reject a fact of the kind 
 whose truth or falsehood might have come to light, at each 
 moment, when he flourished? Or have we grounds for 
 supposing the author of the second book of Maccabees to 
 have been so devoid of shame as to invent a falsehood of 
 which he might be immediately convicted ? He supposes 
 a collection of sacred writings in thetemple. This, there- 
 fore, must have existed in his time, and if we refuse to 
 believe, on the credit of his reputation alone, that Nehe- 
 miah contributed to its formation, nevertheless the con- 
 currence of many circumstances above brought forward 
 renders this so likely that the unsettled credit of the 
 historian, with regard to this relation at least, is much 
 strengthened. 
 
 At what time the collection, which began with the 
 completion of the new temple, terminated, and no further 
 addition was made to the old books, cannot, however, at the 
 present time be determined, since no author has left any 
 express information on the point; we must consider, how- 
 ever, the termination to have occurred a considerable time 
 before the birth of Christ, because at so early a period 
 they were in some way distributed under three chief heads 
 by Palestinian and Egyptian authors, by Philo, Josephus, 
 and the New Testament. Had not the distribution of this 
 library been at that time firmly fixed the description of it 
 would not have been universally the same. 
 
 SECTION 6.— Name of the Collection. 
 
 For a considerable time before the birth of Christ, 
 the sacred writings of the Jews, differing so much as 
 they do from one another in regard to authors, contents, 
 
THE HOLY WRITINGS 29 
 
 and the time of their composition, were spoken of 
 as one whole; but not known, however, till the first 
 century after Christ by a fixed universal title. The 
 authors of these times, whose writings we still possess, 
 hesitate betwixt the general expressions ‘Book,’ or 
 ‘ Writing’ in its most exalted sense, or ‘Holy Writing.! 
 Sometimes they describe the whole collection according to 
 the parts of which it was composed, as ‘the Law and 
 the Prophets,’ or as ‘the Law, the Prophets, and the 
 Psalms’; sometimes they speak of ‘ faithful books,’ 
 ‘books composed by prophets’;* sometimes of ‘ holy 
 writings which were preserved in the Temple’;* some- 
 times of ‘a holy library’? Later, it was called, after the 
 example of the Apostle Paul (as was intended), the ‘ Old 
 
 Testament’ (παλαιὰν διαθηκην), in contradiction to the 
 New which Christ had established.*® 
 Out of παλαια διαθηκη the Church Fathers fashioned 
 
 ' βιβλια, HD, 2 Timothy iv. 13; γραφη, 2 Timothy iii. 16; iepa 
 γραμματα, WIT MHD, "3.3; 2 Timothy iv. 15; ypadu ἅγιαι, Romans 
 7,0: 
 
 * Matthew v. 17, νομὸς και mpopnta:; Luke xxiv. 44, vouos, προφηται, 
 και ψαλμοι; Josephus, Maccab. xviii. vou., προφ. και ἄλλα (βιβλια). So 
 also Sirach, Prol. 1; J osephus, Contra Ap. lib.i.c. 8, v., m. and ὕμνοι προς 
 Tov Θεὸν καὶ τοις avOpwrois ὑποθηκας Tov Biov mapexovres. According to 
 Philo, De Vita Contempl. (Opp. ν. 11. p. 475, ed. Mang., p. 893, ed. Francf.), 
 the holy books of the Therapeutz were vouoı, Aoyıa θεσπισθεντα δια 
 προφητων Kat ὕμνοι Kat Ta ἄλλα, οἷς Emiornun καὶ εὐσεβεια συναυξονται και 
 TEAELOVYT AL, ; 
 
 3 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i.e. 8. Compare ὃ 40 below. 
 
 4 Josephus, Antig. lib, v. c. i. § 17, δηλουται Sia των ἀνακειμενων ἐν 
 Tw lepw γὙραμματων. 
 
 5 2 Maccab. ii. 18, Νεεμιας... καταβαλλομενος βιβλιοθηκην ἐπισυνηγαγε 
 τα περι των βασίλεων και προφητων και Ta του Δαυιδ και ἐπιστολας βασιλεων 
 περι ἀναθηματων. 
 
 6.2. Corinthians iii. 14. Compare Matthew xxiv. 28. Only Paul 
 uses πάλαια διαθηκὴ in the passage quoted of the Mosaical writings, as 
 Sirach xxiv. 24, 25, 2 Kings xxiii, 2, in the LXX. 
 
30 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 new names, as, διαθηκογραφα, ἐνδιαθηκα βιβλια, and so on.! 
 But, contrary to the sense of the Apostle Paul, the idea only 
 of a Testament was present to the minds by these expres- 
 sions, in which the Vulgate by its sangwis novi testamente 
 (Matthew xxvi. 28) had anticipated them. Chrysostom 
 was the first to give currency to the words βιβλος, βιβλίον, 
 βιβλια, sometimes of the Old Testament, but sometimes 
 of the Old and New, in like manner as Jerome and 
 Isidore had introduced the striking name Bibliotheca 
 Sancta.2 With the later Jews, besides the general words 
 “ Book,’ ‘Holy Books’® (ΣΡ, wıpn, “HD, OAD), the 
 expression ‘the Twenty-four Books’ (Ay2qN) D’Wy) was 
 usual—the last as the title of the manuscripts as well 
 as of the editions of the Old Testament. For as the 
 Greeks arranged their Homer in twenty-four Rhapsodies 
 and Theophrast’s writings in twenty-four books, according 
 to the number of the letters in the Greek alphabet, in like 
 manner the Jews in the old times divided their holy 
 writings, according to the real number of consonants in 
 their alphabet into twenty-two books (sect. 42). But soon 
 
 1 Origenes, Philocal. e. iii. p. 24; Suicer Thes. Eccles. v. διαθηκΊ. 
 
 2 Chrysostomus, Homil. ii. t. v. p. 7; Suicer, 7168. Eccles. t. i. p. 687; 
 Isidorus, Orig. lib. iv. ο. 3. 
 
 3 The name NP arose from Nehemiah viii., where it is used of 
 the Law book of Moses, which was read in public; and the Rabbins 
 also employ the word in this limited sense. In the larger sense it 
 signifies the entire collection of the holy books of the Hebrews, which 
 should be read as a duty as the first of all books, in the same manner 
 as the Mahometans name the collection of their religious doctrines 
 Koran δ: (that is, the book of books, which deserves to be read 
 before all), Sometimes NPD is contradistinguished from the Rabbinical 
 glosses and explanations, and then signifies ‘ the text’ which is being 
 explained: Rich. Simon, Hist. crit. dw V. T. p. 59; Hottinger in 
 Thes. phil. p. 88. The modern Jews first used NID in the sense of a 
 
 ‘pointed copy’ of the N. T. Repertoriwm for “Bib. and Eastern Lit. 
 Pt. iii. § 116. 
 
THE HOLY WRITINGS 31 
 
 after the birth of Christ the Jews, partly from whim ! and 
 partly to render it like the Greek in the number of conso- 
 nants, introduced two Yods into their alphabet, and from 
 that time they reckoned twenty-four books. ? 
 
 SECTION 7.— Arrangement of the Collected Books. 
 
 The order in which the writings of the Old Testament 
 now follow each other appears to be of extreme antiquity. 
 Jesus Sirach the elder reckons out of the Old Testament 
 the famous men, who deserve the esteem of posterity, in 
 the very same order in which they succeed one another in 
 our editions: the twelve lesser Prophets he throws together 
 in one book and places it after Ezekiel (Sirach xlv.— 
 xlix.). According to the New Testament, in the manu- 
 scripts of that day the series of Hagiographa commenced 
 with the Psalms and the book of Chronicles closed the 
 entire collection. For Christ uses the term Hagiographa 
 of the Psalms, which He names as the first book thereof 
 (Luke xxiv. 44%); and when He wishes to cite the first 
 and last instances of the shedding of innocent blood, from 
 
 1 They held it to be a matter of weight and importance that even 
 in their alphabet the name Jehovah should be to be found by means of 
 three Yods, by which the later Jews are accustomed to express it. 
 
 2 Hottinger, Thes. philol. p. 101, has collected the necessary proofs 
 to this point. 
 
 3 Truly only after an exegetical conclusion, which rests on the 
 following reasoning : ‘ because Josephus, Philo, and the modern Jews 
 indeed always divide the O. T. into three parts, and we also here find 
 three names, Moses, Prophets, and Psalms. Secondly, since by the 
 two first parts with Josephus, Philo, and the modern Jews, Moses and 
 the Prophets (as here) are meant, so it is probable that the third term, 
 Psalms, also means the third part.’ Now the only remaining point of 
 debate is whether the third part includes all the now so-called Hagio- 
 grapha, or only as many books as Josephus sets in the third class, or as 
 Philo includes under ὕμνοις kar τοις ἄλλοις. And here a very learned 
 pro and con may be carried on, into which, however, I must decline to 
 enter, since a way out is scarcely to be found; therefore the above 
 
33 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the history of the Old Testament, He chooses the example 
 of that of Abel from Genesis as the first book of the Old 
 Testament, and that of Zachariah from the book of 
 Chronicles as the last book of all (Matthew xxiii. 95). 
 Still these passages do not ascertain the collocation of each 
 single book. And perhaps aslittlein ancient as in modern 
 times was the precise identical position of single books in 
 the general series universally observed. In the Talmud, 
 the five books of Moses are followed by Joshua, Judges, 
 Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve 
 minor Prophets, Ruth, the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, the 
 Preacher, the Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, 
 Esther, Chronicles? The Masorites, on the contrary, 
 arrange the greater Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
 according to the order of time observed by the exact 
 Spanish manuscripts. The Germans, however, adhere 
 to the order of the Talmud. In the Spanish manu- 
 scripts the Hagiographa has the following order: 
 Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Preacher, 
 Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. The Germans, how- 
 ever, have the arrangement: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song 
 of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Preacher, Esther, Daniel, 
 
 reasoning I deliver over to the general mercy. Only I should hold the 
 objection for unimportant, that the Psalms are by no means to be con- 
 sidered a part of the Hagiographa because no piece thereof except 
 the Psalms contains any account of Christ’s Passion. It may well on 
 the contrary be asked where, then, in Moses the prophecies concerning 
 Christ’s Passion and Resurrection are to be met with, which, to the best 
 of my knowledge, no one, without sinking to the depths of the typical, 
 has yet discovered. Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms signify only 
 the Old Testament, without fixing the very books in which the pro- 
 phecies are to be sought. 
 
 1 Acts of the Apostles vii. 42, Amos is cited: ἐν βιβλίῳ των προφητων. 
 Hence does it follow that the N. T. also considers the lesser Prophets 
 as a book. 
 
 2 Baba bathia, fol. 14, b. 
 
DISTRIBUTION OF THE HOLY WRITINGS 99 
 
 Ezra, Chronicles." And even from these arrangements 
 many variations are to be found in the manuscripts. 
 
 These diversities, however, spring often from mere 
 accidents, but sometimes the occasions were more im- 
 portant, which are yet at present but seldom to be ac- 
 counted for, and the explanation afforded by the Jews is 
 often of doubtful value. According, however, to the re- 
 presentation of the modern Jews, Isaiah was placed after 
 Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in order that, after two prophets 
 who speak so much of the destruction of the State and 
 temple, a book full of consolation might follow. Perhaps, 
 however, this reason was invented only because the true 
 one was preserved by no tradition. Perhaps Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel were placed first because unity of authorship 
 characterised the prophecies of both, and Isaiah received 
 the third place because his prophecies were alloyed by the 
 addition of many others of an anonymous character and 
 the offspring of very modern times (section 520), and he, 
 on account of these recent additions, was considered un- 
 worthy of the first place, but on the other hand, as a 
 prophetical anthology, was made to occupy, with a wise 
 regard to propriety, the place before the second prophetical 
 collection, that of the twelve lesser prophets. 
 
 SEcTION 8.—Distribution of the Same. 
 
 The distribution also of the prophets of the Old Testa- 
 ment into three parts, into ‘ Law (Mn), Prophets (D’S2)), 
 and Hagiographa ('21N3),’ in the main extends as far back 
 as the collection itself. For the present usual disposition 
 of the separate writings is primitive (sect. 7), and traces 
 of the said division are to be found in the writings of the 
 Jews long before the birth of Christ. It is in fact implied 
 
 1 Elias Levites, Prefat. tertia ad Massoreth Hammassoreth. 
 D 
 
94 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 in the description of the Old Testament. Jesus Sirach the 
 younger, Philo, the New Testament, and Josephus use it 
 (sect. 6); only at that time no universally-adopted name 
 for the third part, the Hagiographa, existed. Therefore the 
 above-named were obliged to call it after the first book of 
 its contents, ‘the Psalms,’ as occurs in the New Testament ; 
 sometimes to distinguish it by the title ‘ Ethical Writings,’ 
 and the like, as do Jesus Sirach, Philo, and Josephus. The 
 first trace of the name Hagiographa (0'21N3) is to be found 
 in Epiphanius, who expresses it very literally by ypadea.! 
 
 However, it may appear that the Jews, after the birth 
 of Christ, placed many books among the Hagiographa which 
 were formerly assigned to the Prophets. For Josephus 
 reckons only four books to the Hagiographists, and on the 
 other hand enumerates thirteen Prophets (sec. 40) ; contra- 
 rily Jeromeand the Talmud and the modern Jews count eight 
 Prophets and nine Hagiographists (sec. 55, 56). But doubt- 
 less the division with Josephus is a classification quite pecu- 
 liar to him, which was founded, not on the series of the single 
 books in the manuscripts, but on what was customary in 
 his time, the habit of assigning to prophets all books not 
 the composition of poets in the strict sense of the word. 
 
 However general amongst Jews and Christians the 
 division into ‘ Law,’ ‘ Prophets,’ and ‘ Hagiographa’ was, 
 still it was unsuitable. This was felt by its very inventors 
 the Jews. For since under the category of the Prophets 
 not only authors were included who had declared prophe- 
 cies, but also the authors of the books of Joshua, Judges, 
 Samuel, and Kings, the necessity arose of making a 
 second distinction, namely prophets of the first and second 
 class, (DUNS) priores and (DYIIMN) posteriores. 
 
 After the birth of Christ the expression ‘ canonical and 
 apocryphal’ writings of the Old Testament began to be 
 used (sec. 15 foll.). 
 
 ! Epiphanius, in Panarium, p. 58. 
 
WERE THE AUTHORS TERMED PROPHETS ? 35 
 
 SECTION 9.— How far can the Authors of the Old Testament 
 be termed Prophets ? 
 
 It was usual, after the example of Philo and Josephus, 
 to include the authors of the Old Testament under the 
 name ‘ Prophets’ (2'822), Nebiim (sec. 28, 44). This ex- 
 pression was confined in the beginning to its sense in the 
 Bible which applies the large appellation Nabi, or προ- 
 φητης, to authors of very different kinds. es the 
 custom arose of using the expression in its highest sense, 
 and of indicating thereby a man taught by the immediate 
 instruction of the Deity; and Josephus finally made the 
 credibility and certainty of Hebrew history to depend on 
 the fact of its authors being styled Nebiim (arpodnraz). 
 
 Prophet, or Nabi, signifies with the Jews every con- 
 fidant of the Divinity, according to the most various in- 
 flections and modifications imparted to the word by the 
 shifting forms of human representation changing with 
 time and experience. The farther we go back into the 
 times of the old world the narrower do we find the know- 
 ledge of men with regard to the nature of things and the 
 causes of their changes, destruction, renovation, and re- 
 turn. It cost thousands of years to enable the human 
 intellect to comprehend that all changes are connected 
 with one another like the links of a long chain, and to 
 form an idea of eternally immutable laws by which all the 
 workings of Nature are regulated. Everything was much 
 more derived from the immediate agency of a powerful 
 and invisible being dwelling in the objects subjected to 
 change; and all nature was animated with ghosts, demons, 
 divinities, or by what other names each tribe might 
 distinguish these invisible beings. They not only ac- 
 counted for the more terrible changes in nature by this 
 
 Dee 
 
36 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 theory, such as thunder, lightning, hail, tempests, &c., but 
 not a tree stirred, nor soft breeze blew, without impressing 
 the oldest children of nature with the notion that these 
 appearances also arose from particular beings (a god of the 
 winds). Plants, flowers, trees, springs, grottoes, rivers, 
 hills—in short, everything, from the sea beneath up to the 
 stars above, was quickened and animated and inhabited by 
 invisible and powerful beings, a true world of spirits, a 
 widely diffused Polytheism ! 
 
 Amidst such ideas the most ancient languages were 
 formed. Gradually does the rude child of nature step 
 from the first degree of education up to the next; by 
 experience he learns the causes of changes separately ; 
 and his polytheism decreases as his store of knowledge 
 augments. At length the idea occurs to him of the in- 
 fluence of a higher being on the occasion of those 
 phenomena which excite his astonishment or are dis- 
 tinguished by a too great strength of function or extreme 
 difficulty of observation, till finally the high light of 
 mental illumination disperses also this last mist of igno- 
 rance. In the meantime these traces of the days of 
 infancy do not so soon disappear; they have become once 
 for all so deeply impressed on the language that even in 
 the times of more enlightened ideas and correcter views of 
 the causes of things and of their changes, the old puerile 
 representations continue in the expressions of all those 
 who speak the language; though, without any intention, 
 on the part of the speakers, of pretending an assignment 
 of causes. In short the old hieroglyphic is there; it has, 
 however, exchanged its old rude sense for a more intel- 
 lectual one. 
 
 Just so narrowly began the notions of unenlightened 
 man concerning the changes which take place in the 
 spiritual world; and just so slowly as in the physical did 
 
WERE THE AUTHORS TERMED PROPHETS ? 97 
 
 they become enlarged and corrected. In the oldest times, 
 thoughts, inventions, and dexterity are never the property 
 of the individual, or the result of his natural powers, but 
 the gift of some higher being; events in the spiritual 
 world proceed inan unbroken chain just as little as in the 
 natural; much more there seems to be no end to external 
 interruptions; the free natural movement is nowhere to 
 be found, but everywhere foreign guidance step by step. 
 Thoughts are voices of the Deity in the inner man; inven- 
 tions and skill are His gifts; the arts of agriculture and 
 the cultivation of the vine, and the most important contri- 
 vances in the handicrafts are taught from above—in a word, 
 men are the confidants of the Deity and in constant com- 
 munication with Him. Still, however, these thoughts are 
 only divine in the beginning; with the increase of educa- 
 tion the traces of mental progress are discernible, and the 
 manner and means in which skill is acquired are more 
 and more laid open, and from that time forward divine 
 intimations gradually decline. Now they are the limited 
 privilege of only extraordinary men, who in their intel- 
 lectual power rise far above their contemporaries, and now 
 no longer common and everyday notions passed for divine 
 suggestions but great and important ideas, largely com- 
 prehensive conceptions, great conclusions from present 
 circumstances, striking views into futurity and the like. 
 Men of great intellect, sages, prophets, and lawgivers, are 
 henceforth the confidants of the Divinity. He who 
 ventures on a connected discourse, either oral or written, 
 or with greater presence of mind and boldness, speaks 
 with force and energy, even in these times of already- 
 advanced education, undertakes a work beyond the usual 
 strength of the men of his day ! and his superiority receives 
 from them the explanation of a special Divine assistance. 
 
 1 The appellation of such confidants of the Divinity is derived 
 
38 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Supposing now in the progress of centuries and experience 
 the human understanding to have reached its pinnacle so 
 as no longer to esteem the immediate interposition of the 
 Deity necessary to the solution of such difficulties; and 
 that it is also generally acknowledged that the difference 
 of parts amongst contemporaries depends upon difference 
 of natural capacity and its cultivation, and a thousand 
 other circumstances; that to every man, indeed, a portion 
 of Divine power has been imparted, the developement of 
 which is superior and finer in one than in another, and ac- 
 cording to the measure of whose distribution the operation 
 is more powerful in one than in another; still upon that 
 account the old expressions respecting great men are not 
 altogether rejected, but acquire in the speech of enlight- 
 ened days a sense entirely different from that in which 
 they were first employed. 
 
 If then these old popular ideas are to be applied to a 
 Hebrew Nabi, which to my knowledge no author has as 
 yet done, every author of whom we possess the least 
 fragment in the Old Testament would be entitled to that 
 appellation. But even the Jewish authors upon whose 
 authority we have retained the name, connected therewith 
 quite different ideas. They had formed a peculiar scheme 
 concerning their national sages of the old world, which, 
 looking to its origin, they could only account for by sup- 
 posing a certain infusion of the Godhead, which, according 
 
 indeed from the oral discourses. With the Hebrews they are called 
 D'’N’2), as with the Greeks μαινόμενοι. They appeared in early times, 
 when from poverty of speech they were compelled to eke out their dis- 
 courses by looks, mute expression, and gesticulations, and the whole 
 body co-operated in order to express the thoughts which they wished 
 to impart to their hearers. Every public discourse was, therefore, a 
 μαινεσθαι, an insanire, yw, 1 Samuel xviii. 10, Jeremiah xxix. 26, 
 which seems also to be the fundamental ideaof X33. Compare Simonis 
 Lex. Hebr. ex ed. I. G. Eichorn, Hale, 1793, 8. 
 
FORMATION OF THE LANGUAGE 39 
 
 to their system, was used from time to time to descend 
 upon them.! If we imagine in prophets men who in 
 the very highest and only possible sense were subjected 
 to the influence of the Deity, the term can by no means 
 be made applicable to all the writers of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The Jewish historians, for instance, could scarcely 
 have been under that high influence. If they wrote 
 the history of their own times, they recorded matters with 
 which, as contemporaneous, they were already sufficiently 
 acquainted; if they described the adventures of bygone 
 times, they drew their materials from sources already in 
 existence; and the internal structure of the books of 
 Jewish history shows that their origin, like that of the 
 other old and modern historical works of the East, is alto- 
 gether human. 
 
 SECTION 10.—Some General Ideas concerning the Language 
 in which the Old Testament was written. 
 
 The language which the Hebrews spoke, and in 
 which the Old Testament was written,’ was a dialect of 
 the widely-spread Semitical language. It was also closely 
 related to the language of all the tribes which dwelt on 
 the shores of the Mediterranean sea, and with and amongst 
 whom the Phoenicians (Hamites by descent) settled; con- 
 sequently, therefore, related to the language of the greatest 
 commercial nation of antiquity, which not only was visited 
 by the, at that time, only known three parts of the world 
 for purposes of trade, but possessed also partly factories, 
 partly colonies, in Asia, Europe, and Africa, and, therefore, 
 because they had exchanged their Hamitical tongue for the 
 
 ' See only the passages from Philo, § 28. 
 2 Only in the books written during the abode of the Jews in Chaldxa 
 
 do any passages in the Chaldzan dialect appear. Daniel ii. 4, vii. 28; 
 Ezra iv. 8, vi. 19, vii. 12, 27. 
 
40 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 idiom in use on the shores of the Mediterranean, they gave 
 an extremely wide currency to the latter. This was as nearly 
 related to the two chief dialects of Asia—the Aramzan, 
 which was spoken in Syria, Babylon, Assyria, &c., and 
 the Arabian—as the Ionic dialect to the Doric and Atolic, 
 so that it cost these nations but little pains to communi- 
 cate with each other in their speeches. Therefore the Old 
 Testament was written in the language of all the civilised 
 nations of that day except the Egyptians. 
 
 To fix the relationship of this widely extended dialect 
 with the languages of the other tribes of Asia is impos~ 
 sible, because its origin is lost in the mists of the earliest 
 times. Even the inquiry into its antiquity can amount to 
 but weak conjectures, and he who should determine to 
 pursue its history beyond the Noachian deluge would 
 venture on an enterprise whose result must be the 
 remotest probabilities. Still the Hebrew language claims 
 an extremely high antiquity and must have been the idiom 
 of very early civilised tribes. Not only in Moses’ time 
 was it already fully perfected, but, as in his very first book 
 older verbatim inscriptions are introduced, it must, cen- 
 turies before him, have received the polish necessary for 
 literary composition. About this time the high symbolical 
 spirit, breathed in the early infancy of languages, had already 
 evaporated, it had become subjected to the shackles of 
 written letters and of fixed grammar; and although it was 
 fashioned by Polytheism (as its inner structure shows), 
 it had become at this time fully adapted to express all 
 the ideas connected with the unity of God and to the 
 exposition of other spiritual ideas for which rude languages 
 have no forms. He only who has followed the history of 
 the gradual formation of a language will be able by such 
 experience to acquire a true notion of the extremely high 
 antiquity of the Hebrew tongue or of that fruitful mother 
 
FORMATION OF THE LANGUAGE 41 
 
 of many daughters, the Semitic. How many centuries 
 are required to subdue a rude language—to round its 
 corners and cast away its stiffness and inflexibility! How 
 long does it serve the purposes of poesy alone! How long 
 does it possess expressions for merely external objects! 
 And when the number of words and expressions is become 
 ample enough, how long is it compelled to carry over 
 everything that is mental into the bodily world and still 
 ring for ever with images and parables in order to enun- 
 ciate but a small number of intellectual ideas! And 
 what labours and preparations, and what series of cen- 
 turies must not the Semites have expended, to compass 
 the possibility in the Hebrew language of only that Song 
 of Creation with which the writings of Moses commence! 
 The nature and internal structure of the Hebrew language 
 at the time of Moses compels us to believe that the art 
 of using letters for centuries in succession, combined 
 with convenient writing materials, must have worked 
 together for its perfection; and because its influence had 
 already appeared in such great works and the old lofty 
 language of poetry had subsided to nearly the level of 
 prose, and become fettered by grammatical rules, it 1s to 
 be inferred that the use of letters and of convenient 
 writing materials was no longer a secret confined to a few 
 persons but that it had been already applied to the pur- 
 poses of common life. Who, then, may undertake to fix 
 the number of centuries necessary to bring this important 
 work to this high degree of perfection ? 
 
42 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Section 11.—Various Idioms of the Hebrew Dialect. 
 
 Indisputably in the time of Moses the Hebrew dialect 
 was already divided into numerous idioms. In Egypt it 
 was spoken by the Jews under influences of an entirely 
 different nature, of an entirely different people, and of an 
 entirely different language from those under which it was 
 used by that part of the Hebrew nation which during the 
 sojourn of the rest in Egypt wandered up and down in 
 Arabia with their flocks and herds. With the latter an 
 education under the sway of a different nature, inter- 
 course with a different Semitical tribe, the Arabs, and a 
 nomadic mode of life different from that of the Egyptians, 
 must have wrought their peculiar effect on the language 
 spoken by them; there must have arisen, in the different 
 lands in which it was used, not only a variance in pronun- 
 ciation, the employment of certain words and forms and 
 the like, but also the tongue itself in every land would 
 acquire a particular hue, or the fate of the Hebrew must 
 have been different from that of every other well-known 
 language in the world. But in what quarter and under 
 which tribes the language of learning was formed, or which 
 tribes preceded the others in cultivation and with its ad- 
 vances improved also their language, extended it, and 
 rendered it best adapted for use in written reccrds—these 
 inquiries (although they regard an important object), 
 since history is silent thereupon, we are no longer in a 
 situation to answer. 
 
 In the meantime, according to the nature of things 
 and the analogy of letters in other nations, Moses must 
 have written in the most polished Hebrew idiom, 
 which had been employed already in literary attempts, 
 which the ancient verbatim inscriptions quoted in the first 
 
THE HEBREW DIALECT 43 
 
 book of Moses prove! And after him, all the still 
 extant authors, even to Malachi downwards, including 
 a space of more than twelve hundred years,? wrote 
 in the very same Hebrew idiom, not, as if the Hebrew 
 tongue, contrary to the example of others, had for 
 ever continued unchanged—not as if centuries? and 
 provinces‘ had exerted no influence upon it—not as if 
 it had never degenerated into greater and lesser dialects, 
 as everybody knows was the case with the Arabic and 
 Greek languages. In all probability we ought to distin- 
 guish between the learned language of the Jews and that 
 in common use.> No idiom approached the former in flexi- 
 bility, none wrapt itself more lightly and firmly around all 
 ideas, none possessed equal copiousness and regularity. It 
 was studied by Moses in the old national records just 
 
 ! In like manner the Ionic dialect was used by Hesiod, Herodotus, 
 Hippocrates, and other Greek authors, from whom, considering their 
 birthplaces, the use of an entirely different idiom was to be expected. 
 They employéd, however, the former because it was the earliest and 
 most polished. 
 
 * According to the usual reckoning, 1160 years. 
 
 337 and 7y) in both genders, and perhaps py 5 B. Moses 
 viii. 3 (the preterite witb a paragogic Nun, if it should not be pointed 
 97) are known archaisms in Moses. 
 
 4 The Ephraimites pronounced always moan and the rest nba, 
 Judges xii. 6, and the guttural letters ynmNX they pronounced without 
 distinction as x. 
 
 "ΤῈ sa j9, 2 B. Moses xvi. 15, is to be translated ‘which is that,’ 
 the word used in common life was 19 where authors used nn. Much 
 of the variety of expression of individual authors must already be lost 
 to us, because all are provided with vowels according to the same rules, 
 and the same pronunciation is applied to all. For instance the Dual 
 in the Hebrew provinces was probably differently pronounced, of which 
 we possess some trace still in the double forms ony and p’nw, 
 Dw and D’yW; and would ever poy) have been written for 
 oSyyny, unless many persons had pronounced powiny? Are not in 
 the German dialects ai contracted into ae, and ei into e? 
 
44 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 as Homer sought his style from the songs of the ancient 
 Greek bards, and the former again was with the Jews as 
 Homer with the Greeks, the principal source from whence 
 all following writers drew their language. In him rested 
 the first germs of the images, pictures, and descriptive 
 modes which after centuries became expanded in the heads 
 of the Jews, because he was their auctor classicus and 
 national handbook. Hence the provincialisms and barbar- 
 isms at the times of the Judges, when the new colony in 
 Palestine existed half a wilderness; hence the declension 
 from the usual language of the Bible in the passages where 
 words from common life were adopted, either accidentally 
 or intentionally ; hence soon after Moses the interrupted 
 cultivation of the Hebrew tongue; it had through him, 
 as the Arabic through the Koran, already reached its 
 golden age, because the Jews regarded Moses, as the 
 Arabians their Prophet, as the pattern of the purest style 
 in writing. 
 
 With all this, making allowance for those shades which 
 always distinguish one author from another, a certain 
 similarity of characteristic expression amongst the authors of 
 one province must be acknowledged which clearly divides 
 them from those of another.! In short, the dialect of each 
 province affected the book-language, and the longer an 
 author lived after Moses the greater was its influence, 
 and towards the end of the State, from the traffic of the 
 Hebrews with the Chaldzeans, Chaldaisms obtained Hebrew 
 burghership, in which at last the pure style of Moses was 
 wholly lost.? 
 
 1 Compare the Samaritanisms in Amos and Hosea: for instance, 
 Amos vi. 8, INMN1D instead of AyND; Hosea vi. 6, INDNDN in the mas- 
 culine suffix of the second person which the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 writes IN, Ke. 
 
 2 See for this, the introductions to single books of Jeremiah, Ezeziel, 
 and others. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES 45 
 
 Section 12.—Genuineness of the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 I.—They come to us from no Impostor. 
 
 He who with knowledge and impartiality examines the 
 question whether the writings of the Old Testament are 
 genuine, will certainly be compelled to answer it in the 
 affirmative. 
 
 1. They cannot all be the invention of one impostor— 
 this every part of the Old Testament declares. What a 
 variety in language and expression! As Isaiah writes, so 
 does not Moses, nor Jeremiah like Ezekiel, and between 
 these and each of the lesser Prophets a wide cleft of style 
 is established. The grammatical structure of the language 
 in Moses is very peculiar; in the book of the Judges pro- 
 vincialisms and barbarisms appear ; Isaiah casts the store 
 of words into new forms; Jeremiah and Ezekiel are full 
 of Chaldzisms; in short, as we proceed from the authors 
 placed back in the early times onwards to the later, we 
 find the language in a gradual decay, till finally it settles 
 down into a shape absolutely Chaldean. 
 
 Well then, what variety in the movement of ideas and 
 extent of imagery! The harpstrings of Moses and Isaiah 
 give a rushing sound, but their chime is soft beneath the 
 hands of David. The muse of Solomon glitters in -the 
 pomp of the most voluptuous court ; but her sister, clad in 
 careless array, wanders with David by brooks and banks, 
 on plains and with flocks around. One poet is original, 
 like Isaiah, Joel, and Habakkuk; another a copyist, as 
 Ezekiel. One wanders along the untrodden paths of 
 genius, whilst another steals by his side over beaten 
 ground. From one stream forth rays of erudition, whilst 
 from his neighbour a spark has never issued. In the 
 
46 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 oldest author strong Egyptian colouring glitters through- 
 out, in his successors it grows fainter and fainter, and 
 becomes quite extinguished in the last. 
 
 Lastly, also, in the manners—the finest gradation ! 
 At first everything. single and simple, as in Homer, and 
 still with the Bedouin Arabs; this noble simplicity be- 
 comes gradually lost in luxury and effeminacy, and 
 vanishes at last in that most voluptuous court of Solomon. 
 
 Nowhere a leap; everywhere a gentle gradual pro- 
 gress! Only ignorant or thoughtless sceptics can affirm 
 the Old Testament to be the work of one deceiver. 
 
 SECTION 13.—Also not the work of several Impostors. 
 
 2. But perhaps several impostors made common cause 
 and in some later century effected (at the same time) the 
 forgery of our Scriptures of the Old Testament ? But how 
 was it possible for them to invent a mode so adapted to 
 the progress of the human understanding? How was it 
 possible in later times to obtain the language of Moses? 
 This visibly exceeds all human power. [Finally one 
 author presupposes the existence of another (sec. 4); they 
 could not, therefore, have arisen all together, but neces- 
 sarily in succession. 
 
 ‘Perhaps, however, such deceivers arose at various 
 times and carried on their forgeries, from where their 
 false predecessors had left off? which will account for the 
 references of one author to another, and explain the 
 striking gradation observed throughout.’ But, first, how 
 was it possible that the cheat should remain undiscovered 
 undenounced, and the deceiver miss the mark of that 
 branding-iron which would have operated as a security to 
 posterity ? How was it possible that a nation should per- 
 mit itself to be deceived more than once, at various times ? 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES 47 
 
 And what purpose could ὑπὸ deceiver have in view? To 
 agerandise the Hebrew nation? In that case his eulogies 
 turn into the coarsest pasquinades, for according to the Old 
 Testament a very unworthy part is always played by the 
 Hebrew people? Or to degrade the Hebrews? But how 
 in this case could the nation suffer books to be obtruded 
 upon it which contained calumnies, and as often as the 
 victorious stranger trod them with his feet to the ground, 
 consoled them with the dry narration ? 
 
 SECTION 14.—Marks of Genuineness. 
 
 1. Moreover, the Old Testament bears all the marks of 
 genuineness in itself. Just the same grounds which are 
 alleged in defence of Homer, support also the genuineness 
 of each separate book of the Old Testament. Why should 
 the justice which is granted to the former be withheld 
 from the latter? If a particular age be assigned to a profane 
 author, and all the circumstances of his book both internal 
 and external coincide therewith; doubts upon the point 
 will be entertained by no impartial inquirer after truth. 
 Nay, where the age of an author is unfixed, is there the 
 least hesitation felt in deciding his date upon the internal 
 evidence afforded by his works? Why, then, should the 
 critical inquirer hesitate to take this very road only with 
 regard to the Bible? 
 
 2. No one has hitherto successfully disputed either the 
 honesty or credibility of any writer of the Old Testament ; 
 much more, every discovery in ancient literature hitherto 
 made has afforded fresh confirmation to the Old Testa- 
 ment. Further, no one has yet shown that the style of 
 any author of the Old Testament is inconsistent, in point 
 of knowledge and circumstances, with the age in which he 
 is stated to have lived. 
 
48 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 In short, all the books’ of the Old Testament, the 
 names of whose authors we know, have the stamp-marks 
 of the honesty of their writers. And with regard to the 
 books with whose authors we are unacquainted, internal 
 evidence will compel the admission of their genuineness. 
 The book of Joshua, for instance, whose author is unknown, 
 goes so deeply into the details of the oldest geography 
 that miracle upon miracle must have been wrought upon 
 an impostor to render such performance possible. 
 
 _ Let search be made with intelligence and without pre- 
 judice, and I am sure every one must be convinced of the 
 genuineness of the books of the Old Testament. 
 
 It is, however, to be taken for granted, what for other 
 reasons was to be expected with regard to such ancient 
 books, that most of the writings of the Hebrews have 
 passed through various hands, before acquiring their pre- 
 sent form, and that in them sometimes old and new are 
 found mingled; this will, however, not induce an im- 
 partial judge to throw doubts on their genuineness. 
 
 1. There is no instance of any surviving ancient author, 
 of what nation soever, whose text has not undergone many 
 alterations and interpolations. Sometimes intentional 
 glosses were made, and old words and expressions and 
 geographical names exchanged for new, in order to clear 
 the sense to the modern reader; sometimes remarks were 
 made on the margin, for the writers’ or others’ use, with- 
 out any intention of their introduction into the text, but 
 which have been subsequently interpolated by the excessive 
 zeal of posterity. Before, then, the genuineness of a book 
 can be affected by such passages, a careful previous critical 
 examination must be made, as to whether they originally 
 stood where they now are, and really flowed from the 
 author’s pen. 
 
 2. The intermingling of old and new passeges and 
 
MARKS OF GENUINENESS 49 
 
 sections arose by necessity from the very mode of origin of 
 many of the writings of the Old Testament. The smaller 
 number came to us in the form in which we now possess 
 them, from the hands of their author. With regard to 
 many, the substance was already extant in separate works, 
 before being bound up together, with certain parts now 
 added to them. Supposing the Mosaical books in their 
 present disposition not to be the work of Moses, still they 
 are composed of Mosaical materials, merely put into form 
 by a later hand. It will be demonstrated in its proper 
 place that the chief foundation of our present ‘ Samuel ’ 
 and ‘ Chronicles’ (particular lives of David and Solomon) 
 attained its actual form by passing through, at least, the 
 hands of two very different editors, of whom each increased 
 and enriched it with his own peculiar additions. For a 
 time the first sixteen chapters of the book of Judges 
 formed by themselves a whole, in which nothing further 
 was recorded than the feats of Hebrew heroes; afterwards 
 an annexation was made of five chapters, perhaps (if we 
 may venture to assign the circumstance) because the piece 
 of skin or linen intended for this heroical record was not 
 yet full of such traditions, and had still capacity for a 
 supplement of some extent, and the economy observed with 
 regard to writing materials in old times would not permit 
 the blank space to remain unemployed. Similar subsequent 
 supplements were made to both Moses and Jeremiah. 
 Our Isaiah is a collection of various anonymous prophetical 
 poesy, of which much appears to belong to the time of the 
 Babylonian captivity, and to which the name of Isaiah 
 was given, that no part might be lost. Our Psalms, 
 according to their actual arrangement, attained their pre- 
 sent extent after the exile, by the junction of several 
 larger and smaller Books of Songs. The materials of our 
 Daniel were at first extant in separate pieces, composed in 
 E 
 
50 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 various idioms, and a later friend of the celebrated writer 
 first brought together all the discoverable separate pieces 
 of his or concerning him. The golden proverbs of 
 Solomon were from time to time increased by contribu- 
 tions; even in the time of Hezekiah additions were made 
 to them, consisting partly of the sayings of the Wise King 
 himself not hitherto collected, and partly of the apophthegms 
 of other wise men of the old world. In short, it was the 
 custom to arrange old and new together, and to connect 
 with one another what was capable of such disposition— 
 sometimes to increase the extent of separate books and suit 
 the rolls in size to one another, sometimes on account of 
 similarity of matter, and so on. And this, in all proba- 
 bility, was the mode of proceeding in the old times before 
 the captivity, but chiefly afterwards on the occasion of 
 founding the new temple-library. 
 
 Were it now resolved to describe as forgeries all books 
 whose every part and passage fell short of congruity in 
 point of time, then truly very few genuine writings of 
 the Hebrews would survive such a sentence; but at the 
 same time this would be a great blow to the classics of 
 both Greek and Roman antiquity. As with regard to the 
 latter so in the case of the former, it behoves the higher 
 criticism only to exercise its office and pronounce sentence 
 after separating, from internal evidence, what belongs to 
 different authors and times. He who blames a Biblical 
 scholar, or even sighs with pious apprehensions, when he 
 beholds him instituting with critical precision and judicial 
 severity an examination into each book of the Old Testa- 
 ment with this object in view, such a person must be either 
 altogether unacquainted with antiquity, profane literature, 
 and the usual mode of dealing with it, or be so entirely 
 destitute of strength of mind as to be incapable of per- 
 ceiving the serious consequence of omitting to apply a 
 
THE HIGHER CRITICISM 61 
 
 test of this nature and also the otherwise invincible army 
 of doubts, which only by the method proposed can be 
 driven from their intrenchments. And he who, holding 
 such proof to be alike useful, important, and necessary, 
 should from sensitive and over-anxious piety wish to pre- 
 scribe a law to the critical inquirer, only to separate 
 where external marks afford occasion or compel to such 
 division: such a person in the realm of crititism must 
 still be classed among the weak and would still endanger 
 the character for genuineness of the greatest number of 
 Hebrew writings. The ancients, however, had a custom at 
 times of marking the end of a book by a subscription : as, 
 for instance, Moses and Jeremiah did and the authors of 
 an old collection of Psalms, by means of the words, 
 ‘Here end the Songs of David.’ Continuators also in- 
 dicated the places where the continuation commenced, by 
 a marginal note, as in the Proverbs of Solomon, by the 
 words, ‘These also are the Proverbs of Solomon, col- 
 lected by the men of Hezekiah.’ But such examples are 
 rare; and for the most part it becomes necessary by 
 entirely other means and by the finest operations of the 
 higher criticism, to attempt to discover what through the 
 progress of time in an ancient work is interpolated and 
 appended. 
 
 SECTION 15.—Canonical Authority of the Books of the Old 
 Testament—Canonical and Apocryphal Writings. 
 
 Soon after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian 
 captivity a collection was set on foot of all the still extant 
 writings of the Hebrew nation, held venerable and holy 
 for age, contents, and authorship by all the members of the 
 new State, and of them a holy library was formed in the 
 
 temple, which at some very early period (the exact year is 
 E2 
 
52 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 not known!) received no further accession (sect. 5).? 
 After the time of making the collection, authors of various 
 kinds, historians, philosophers, poets, and theological 
 romance writers, still arose amongst the Jews. They 
 possessed, therefore, books of very unequal contents and 
 of different periods: the ancient, as works of the Prophets, 
 they held as holy, the modern not, because they were 
 written when the continued series of Prophets no longer 
 existed ;* the ancient were kept in the temple (sect. 39), 
 
 1 Tf, according to Josephus, it closed with the reign of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus, that is only his private opinion, founded on his represen- 
 tation of the Book of Esther (see § 8, 41). 
 
 2] know not what probability can attach to the opinion in the 
 Zurich Library of the most recent Theological and Philosophical Litera- 
 ture (B. i. § 180), that the Jews were not agreed with respect to 
 the number of their sacred books till after the compilation of the 
 Talmud. If a far earlier and in all respects settled collection had not 
 existed, how could Josephus, Philo,and N. T. have used such decisive 
 expressions concerning it, or Josephus have distinguished the ancient 
 writings of his nation into two kinds? He speaks of such as, being 
 written before the times of Artaxerxes Longimanus, were esteemed 
 credible (or divine), and of others composed after Artaxerxes Longi- 
 manus, which were not considered equally credible ; must not, then, the 
 point, how many belonged to one class and how many to the other, 
 have been exactly defined ? ‘It is, however, an established opinion that 
 amongst the orthodox Jews as various judgments prevailed from time 
 to time respecting their sacred books as amongst Christians. Is not 
 Daniel highly esteemed by Josephus, but disparaged by the other Jews, 
 Ezekiel almost rejected from the Canon, and the estimation of Esther 
 unequal ?’ Certainly ; but how can later and private opinions be made 
 the test of what the old and national opinion was? And we know well 
 what the grounds were which gave occasion to their derogatory judg- 
 ments of the said books. Their contents were the rock of offence. 
 History afforded no grounds for their hostility ; would they not, in order 
 to get rid of books so grievous to them, have appealed to the times 
 when they were not included in the class of sacred national writings, 
 had ever so weak a tradition encouraged the provocation ? 
 
 3 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8, expresses himself as follows of 
 these modern writings : πιστεως de οὐχ᾽ ὅμοιας ἤξιωται της προ aurwv, δια 
 To un γενεσθαι τὴν των προφητων ἀκριβη διαδοχὴν. 
 
CANONICAL AUTHORITY 53 
 
 the modern not; the ancient were formed into a public 
 collection, the modern, as far as 1 am aware, not, at least 
 not into a public one. And had not the Alexandrian 
 Christians been such warm admirers of the latter and 
 annexed them (if originally written in the Greek lan- 
 guage) in the original, but if composed in Hebrew in a 
 Greek version, to the manuscripts of the Seventy, who 
 knows whether a leaf of all the modern Jewish writers 
 would be still in existence?! To these two kinds 
 
 1 The Zurich Library makes also some objections to this. ‘There 
 are proofs in existence,’ it says (Part i. § 178), ‘that the Greek Jews 
 extended gradually, to more writings than the Hebrew Jews possessed, 
 the honour of being classed as ancient, holy, and venerable monuments 
 from the times of the old world, nay even as primeval dictations of 
 the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, and doctors of the 
 Church, make no difference in their quotations between various coun- 
 terfeits and the canonical writings of the O. T. Jude cites the Anabasis 
 of Moses and the Books of Enoch; Paul, the Apocalypse of Elijah, and 
 probably also other Apocrypha; Matthew, an apocryphal work of 
 Jeremiah, which the Hebrew Christians possessed as late as the times 
 of Jerome ; Clemens, the false Ezekiel ; Hermas, the Eldad and Medad. 
 It is clear that these books were both known and honoured by the 
 converts from the Greek Jews. They were neither gifts from the 
 Apostles, nor first recommended by them. Moreover, the Church 
 Fathers, Clemens and Origen, who were in the habit of quoting the 
 Apocrypha without distinction, were not the introducers of this custom, 
 but found the taste for these writings established, and were compelled 
 to conform to it. Other Church Fathers, Irenzus, Tertullian, Ambrose 
 of Milan, and others, would never have treated the Wisdom of Solomon, 
 the Books of Enoch, Baruch, Tobias, the false Esdras, the fragments to 
 Daniel, &c., as holy and inspired writings, had they not come to them 
 recommended as such from Jews.’ It would go ill with the fixing of 
 our canon of the O. T. were this so. But, first, it is false that the 
 Jews made no difference between the ancient sacred books of their 
 nation and the so-called apocryphal writings. Josephus, who was at 
 least acquainted with the Greek Jews, whose version he takes as his 
 groundwork throughout his entire writings, says, without any exception, 
 of all the Jews in general, ‘ We have only twenty-two books whose com- 
 position extended down to Artaxerxes Longimanus. Since the time of 
 Artaxerxes, indeed, down to our days, abundance has been written, but 
 
54 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 of writings later on, a considerable time after the birth of 
 Christ, chiefly with a view to the use made of them, dis- 
 
 these new books have not with us the reputation of the old.’ And if 
 these later works were esteemed by the Greek Jews as holy, venerable, 
 and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, how comes it, then, that the Greek 
 Jew, Philo, made no allegories of them as he did of those writings 
 to which he attributed a higher origin? Secondly, it is false that 
 the Apostles made no distinction between canonical and apocryphal 
 writings. How happens it otherwise that, out of so many quotations 
 of the O. T. into the New, so few can be shown to be taken from the 
 Apocrypha? If of equal repute, alike would have been the use made of 
 them. Third, it is false that the inference from the value attached by 
 the Jewish Christians to the Apocrypha is that they were placed by the 
 Jews on an equal footing with their sacred writings. It is well known 
 that the former were held in such excellent estimation by the Jewish 
 Christians in regard to the abundant food afforded from them to their 
 enthusiastical ideas, hopes, and expectations. And if a comparison be 
 made betwixt this estimation and that, according to Josephus, accorded 
 to them by his nation, it will be clear that the Christians made many 
 steps in advance of the Jews. And what isto be concluded from the 
 opinions concerning them of the Church Fathers as to those of the Jews ? 
 Must the opinions of these last necessarily have been those of the 
 former ? 
 
 But ‘in the Greek Bible-compilation many apocrypha were to be 
 found, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the third book of Esdras, Tobias, 
 Baruch, fragments to Daniel and Esther. This is also shown by the 
 use made by Josephus himself (doubtless to please the Greek Jews) 
 of some of these writings, and also the versions thereof made at an 
 early period for the use of the Western Churches, and the canonical 
 authority allowed to them by various councils.’ (1) This objection 
 presupposes, without proof, that already before the birth of Christ the 
 Apocrypha had been added to the Greek Bible; but from whence is 
 this inferred? From the use possibly made of them by Josephus. 
 Does his use of them prove more than this single point, their existence 
 at that time in the Greek version which we now have? May they not 
 have been in his hands in Greek, but as a separate work? And since 
 Philo and the N. T. make so little use of the Apocrypha, is it at all 
 probable that they formed at that time a part of the Greek Bible? 
 Would they not in this case have been much more familiar to Philo and 
 the authors of the N. T. than we find they were? And would not their 
 attention have been directed to these passages by Christians first, 
 described as such great admirers of them? However, let it be so; the 
 
MEANING OF ‘CANON’ . ‘55 
 
 tinctive names were assigned: the older were termed 
 canonical, the modern apocryphal books, and the whole 
 collection of the former was indicated under the name 
 Canon of the Old Testament. 
 
 SECTION 16.— What is meant by ‘ Canonical’ ὃ 
 
 The word Κανων was long in use with the old Church 
 Fathers, and in very general senses, before it was applied 
 to signify a collection of sacred writings. Often with them 
 
 elder Greek-Jews, before the birth of Christ, may perhaps have done it; 
 but nothing will follow hostile to the hitherto maintained Hebrew 
 Canon, since the Palestinian and not the Egyptian is our concern. 
 (2) And what do early translations of the Apocrypha for the use of the 
 Western Churches prove? Only this, which nobody doubts: that they 
 were already in early times held by them in great veneration. What 
 is to be inferred from the conduct of the Councils, which granted 
 canonical authority to the Apocrypha? That they went further in 
 their esteem for these writings than the early Christians, and extended 
 to them a concession never to our knowledge made by the latter ? 
 
 (3) ‘The Egyptian Jews invented fables in order to procure respect 
 to the false old muniments which they had forged to gratify their dis- 
 position to enthusiasm and party spirit. The Jew that wrote the fourth 
 book of Esdras, in order by feigned visions to encourage the hopes of 
 the Messiah’s kingdom amongst his countrymen, produces a story of 
 seventy hidden books, dictated to Esdras by the Holy Spirit. And this 
 tradition of seventy apocrypha is also to be found in the Gospel of 
 Nicodemus. That the fourth book of Esdras in its oldest form was 
 written by no Christian is evident from many signs, although Christians 
 may have interpolated and even increased it with many additions.’ 
 Taking also for granted this account of the origin of the fourth book 
 of Esdras (liable, however, to so many objections), because an inquiry 
 into the point is foreign to this place, what follows from all this? Only, 
 indeed, that individual Jews have set all springs in motion to 
 procure great respect to the productions of their pens. Is the appro- 
 bation of all other Jews to this to be inferred? That out of complais- 
 ance to these fables even a divine origin was attributed by all to the 
 works for whose sakes they were invented? But I stop, not to 
 strive too long against objections which affect so little the principles 
 disputed. 
 
56 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 it meant nothing further than generally a ‘ book,’ and an 
 ‘inventory,’ then, secondly, in particular, an ‘ inventory 
 of things belonging to the Church, and also a ‘ Book 
 generally used in the Church.’? Hence a list of hymns 
 sung on festival days,’ as also the register in which the 
 names of all persons belonging to the Church were entered, 
 was called Κανων. Thirdly, in a still narrower sense the 
 word was used to signify a ‘ publicly authorised catalogue 
 of all books permitted to be read, on the occasions of 
 public assemblies of Christians, for instruction and edifica- 
 tion? Finally, and fourthly, but not till in very late 
 times, a ‘collection of godly and inspired writings’ was 
 understood precisely by the expression. 
 
 Almost all modern literati have adopted the last sig- 
 nification ; they employ hence ‘canonical’ and ‘ inspired’ 
 (kavovıros and Osomvsvoros) as perfect synonyms.’ But 
 some understand by Canon of the Old Testament ‘ the 
 collection of holy and inspired writings which Christ and 
 the Apostles have declared to be holy and inspired.’ 
 
 1 Hence the diminutive kavovioy means simply ‘libellus.’ See 
 Suidas, 8. v. κανονιον. M. Fred. Ferdin. Driik, Diss. de Ratione Historie 
 Canonis scribende (Tiib. 1778, 4). 
 
 2 Synodus Laodic. Canon 42. 
 
 $ Suicer, in Thes. Eecles. t. ii. Ὁ. 40, has verified this meaning by 
 many examples taken out of the Church Fathers. In this way for 
 instance Zonarus expresses himself, Ad Canon. Athanasii Damasceni: 
 Κανων AeyeTat, ὅτι ὠρισμενον. . . EXEL TO ἐμμετρον ἐννεα ᾧδαις συντελου- 
 μενον. 
 
 4 Socrates, Historia Eccles. lib. i. c. 17, τας παρθενους τας ἀναγεγραμ- 
 uevas ἐν τῳ των ἐκκλησιων Kavovi. See Dufresne, Glossarium Mediz 
 et Infime Grecitatis, p. 579. 
 
 5 See Suicer, Thes. Eccles. 8. v. kavwr, a Cotta ad Gerhardi locos theol. 
 t. ii. p. 244. 
 
 6 Suicer, v. kavav. Frick, De Cura Vet. Eccl. circa Canonem, 
 p. 34 ff. 
 
MEANING OF ‘APOCRYPHAL ’ 57 
 
 SECTION 17.—What is meant by ‘ Apocryphal’ ὃ 
 
 To the canonical books the apocryphal are opposed. 
 (1) At first ‘ darkly-written books’ were termed apocry- 
 phal,' therefore forbidden by the Church authorities to be 
 read in public assemblies of the Christians; although not 
 only not forbidden, but their careful study enjoined upon 
 the learned as a positive duty. Hence (2) by apocryphal 
 writings, in contradistinction to canonical, were under- 
 stood ‘books laid aside, and of which no parts were per- 
 mitted to be read in public.’? (8) Even ‘ forged writings’ 
 (pseudepigrapha) were sometimes for like reasons called 
 apocryphal, because of such wretched productions as the 
 Books of Adam, Methuselah, Enoch, and such others, no 
 public use was allowed. Finally (4), in like manner 
 as canonical and inspired were used as synonyms, so an 
 apocryphal book came to signify a ‘book not inspired.’ 
 
 "Suidas, 8. v. pepexvdns. Epiphanius, Heres. li. Drük, 1.6. p. 8. 
 Compare with these the remark of Mr. D. Semler in the Treatise on the 
 Free Examination of the Canon, Part i. § 10, that ἀποκρυφος was some- 
 times used to signify a work allowed for the instruction of more 
 advanced Christians, but prohibited to others. 
 
 2 Rufinus, Expositio Symboli (inter opp. Cypriani), p. 26; Cyrillus, 
 Catech. iv. Ὁ. 68, ed. Toutt. In this case, however, amoKpupos agrees 
 with the Rabbinical }}3}, which also signifies ‘ writings laid aside and 
 forbidden to be read in the synagogue.’ Wherefore the later Jews 
 placed the commencement of Genesis (in which a creation in six days 
 after a fashion so merely human was offensive to them), the Song of 
 Songs (whose contents they considered dangerous to youth), and 
 Ezekiel i. and xl. to xlviii. (because the contents of these chapters were 
 obscure to them, and the temple of Ezekiel did not coincide with their 
 second temple), amongst the prs forbidden to be read. Hottinger, 
 Thes. Phil. p. 521, Castelli and Buxtorf’s Zexica on these words. But 
 on this account the belief is not required that the elder Jews by 1333 
 understood a book not canonical. 
 
 * Athanasius in the Synopsis attributed to him, S. 8. t. ii. p. 154. 
 Numerous passages in support of this sense have been collected by 
 Fabricius, Cod, Pseudep. V. T. t. ii. p. 208. 
 
58 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Only the use of the word in this sense occurred very late, 
 and perhaps not before the time of Jerome. He, however, 
 writes in his prologue to Tobias: ‘ Librum Tobie quem 
 Hebrzei de catalogo divinarum Scripturarum secantes his 
 que apocrypha memorant, manciparunt.’ 
 
 SECTION 18.—Judgment on this Distribution of the Books 
 of the Old Testament into Canonical and Apoeryphal. 
 
 So various are the significations of the words canonical 
 and apocryphal. It became therefore the duty of modern 
 literati who have instituted examinations into the contents 
 of the canon of the Old Testament, to fix what meaning 
 they attached to ‘canon.’ This, alas, has frequently not 
 been done, and hence their examinations are deficient in 
 the requisite precision. 
 
 It were even desirable that the term canon had never 
 been applied to the Old Testament. A word of such 
 various meanings must necessarily produce misunderstand- 
 ings ; and unfortunately the greatest number of meanings 
 it has received in the course of centuries are inapplicable 
 to the Old Testament. 
 
 First, if by canon of the Old Testament is to be 
 understood ‘the collection of godly and inspired writings 
 of the Jews, the production of times previous to the birth 
 of Christ,’ this would be a sense not in the minds of the 
 greatest number of Christian writers, and difficulties upon 
 difficulties encountered the inquirer who questioned the 
 Church Fathers upon the canon of the Old Testament. 
 Judith, Tobias, two books of the Maccabees, five books of 
 Solomon, and so on, for instance, were found reckoned 
 amongst the ‘ canonice scripture.’! Frightened at this 
 
 1 Coneil. Carthag. 3, can. 47 of the 1. ‘Placuit,’ it says, ‘ ut preter 
 canonicas scriptwras nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine scripturarum 
 
DIFFICULTY OF DECIDING 59 
 
 appearance, either the whole inquiry was given up, or, if 
 resolution enough were gathered to proceed, the inference 
 drawn was, that our present canon of the Old Testament 
 is of recent origin, and the arrangement in all its parts, 
 both great and small, not fixed in the ancient times.’ 
 
 Or (2) if by canon of the Old Testament is to be 
 understood the ‘ books of the Jews, permitted before the 
 time of Christ to be read publicly,’ this notion with 
 regard to the Old Testament. would neither be pertinent 
 nor sufficient. With whom was the permission of reading 
 publicly these books? With Jews, or Christians? With 
 Jews: then in that case nothing would be more uncertain 
 than the number of books to be esteemed canonical! For 
 canonical books and books for public reading were not 
 considered convertible. The Song of Songs, for instance, 
 was with them a sacred national work, and yet its public 
 reading in the synagogue was forbidden! Moreover, the 
 selection of books for this religious purpose depended on 
 their political situation. For a time the books of Moses 
 alone were read in public, but when the use of the 
 Mosaical books was prohibited by Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 the Prophets alone, afterwards, when the force of this in- 
 tolerant prohibition had passed away, Moses and the 
 Prophets together. To this end also the five books of 
 Moses, the Prophets and the book of Esther, which on the 
 feast Purim was accustomed to be read with great 
 solemnity, behoved to be placed in the canon; but not 
 
 divinarum ; sunt autem canonice scripture : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
 Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum 
 libri 4, Paralipomenon libri 2, Job, Psalmorum unus, Salomonis libri 
 quinque, libri 12 prophetarum minorum item, Jesaias, Jerem., Ezech., 
 Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esdr& libri 2, Maccabzorum libri 2.’ 
 
 ! Semler’s Treatise on a Free Examination into the Canon, Part i. 
 § 146. 
 
 2 Origen in his preface to the Song of Songs, 
 
60 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the Psalms, not the Proverbs, neither Job, nor the 
 historical books. | 
 
 As understood by the Christians the canon of the 
 Old Testament would be still more uncertain. It would 
 be fixed at a time when it was no longer possible to 
 know what books were canonical ; for not till after the 
 lapse of the first centuries after the birth of Christ would 
 its disposition be made: by a party from whom no satis- 
 factory settlement of the canon of the Old Testament was 
 to be expected, for such settlement required to be the work, 
 not of Christians, but of Jews; without jized principles by 
 which to test the estimation of a book ; for the New Testa- 
 ment decides nothing as to the canon. The choice, there- 
 fore, rested upon mere will, and was guided perhaps by 
 views of piety, which are frequently very equivocal, or by 
 insufficient authorities. Finally, if we compare the still ex- 
 tant lists of the books of the Old Testament permitted to be 
 read publicly among Christians, we shall find also in the list 
 Judith and Tobias, to which for numerous reasons no 
 canonical authority can be extended; so tottering is the 
 foundation upon which the important inquiry into the 
 canon of the Old Testament is made to rest! 
 
 Section 19.—In what Sense in this Inquiry the Canon 
 of the Old Testament is to be taken. 
 
 We proceed, therefore, in our examination of the sub- 
 ject, merely from the time when Jesus and his Apostles 
 in their instruction to the human race referred to infor- 
 mation recorded in the Old Testament. There existed at 
 that time in Palestine a collection which formed a com- 
 plete whole, and was indicated by the New Testament, 
 sometimes by the title Scripture or Holy Scriptures, some- 
 times described by ‘ Law and Prophets,’ or ‘ Law, Prophets, 
 
DIFFERENT CANONS 61 
 
 and Psalms.’ This collection is to be our canon of the 
 Old Testament. We thus get rid of all theological and 
 dogmatical points and our inquiry becomes, as it ought to 
 be, purely historical. 
 
 SECTION 20.—Of the Egyptian and Palestinian Canon 
 in General. 
 
 After the Babylonian exile the Jews became divided, 
 according to the place of their residence, into Egyptian 
 and Palestinian; in both they were in possession of a 
 collection of sacred national writings. And the inquiry 
 is worth the pains, whether in both countries this was of 
 equal or dissimilar extent, and what books as well as how 
 many both in Egypt and in Palestine were comprehended 
 in it? 
 
 For our purpose, however, it is necessary to look 
 chiefly to Palestine, and endeavour to ascertain the com- 
 ponent parts of the Palestinian canon at the epoch of 
 Christ and the Apostles. It may appear, therefore, that 
 an inquiry into the Egyptian canon may be dispensed 
 with, especially considering that though a full notice of it 
 could be given, the question of the Palestinian would still 
 remain to be decided. In the meantime, however, the 
 history of the canon would be defective without it; with- 
 out it many an illustration in the inquiry into the 
 Palestinian would have to be foregone. Finally, were a com- 
 plete account of the Egyptian anywhere to be found, and 
 an agreement in all its parts with the Palestinian found 
 existing, in that case the important question whether the 
 Jews at the time of Christ were in possession of a 
 collection fixed as to allits parts, greater or less, or a com- 
 plete canon, would be solved to the satisfaction of every 
 inquirer after truth. 
 
62 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Should, however, either now or at some future time, a . 
 sufficient number of fragments of the Egyptian canon be 
 discovered, to enable the formation of an entire whole, 
 regret will still remain that even here the mischievous 
 influence of rapacious time is manifest; but the contents 
 of the canon will not on that account be the less certain. 
 Were even traces evident that apocryphal books openly 
 existed in the canon of the Egyptian Jews, these would 
 just as little attain the dignity of canonical books as the 
 Apocrypha inserted amongst the scripture canonice by 
 the countenance of the Church Fathers (sec. 18). The 
 question here is to be decided not by Church Fathers but 
 by Jews, and those Jews the Jews of Palestine (sec. 19). 
 In like manner as the Samaritans came to possess a false 
 Joshua, which they placed by the side of the five books of 
 Moses, so similar accidents in Egypt may have raised one 
 or more apocryphal books into the rank of the canon. 
 
 I. THE CANON OF THE EGYPTIAN AND PALESTINIAN 
 JEWS WAS ONE AND THE SAME. 
 
 Section 21.—First Ground for the Presumption. 
 
 Still for manifold reasons is it extremely probable that 
 the canon of the Old Testament in Egypt and Palestine 
 wasalike. First, the relations existing between the Jews in 
 both countries make this at once probable. Both were, if 
 not indeed at all times, in some, if not close, connection 
 and occasionally even in religious community ; ! there was 
 
 ı Notwithstanding the jealousy which prevailed between the Jews 
 in both lands, religious communion went further than was to be ex- 
 pected. To that purpose the celebrated author Philo himself was once 
 despatched to Jerusalem to offer up a sacrifice in the temple there in 
 the name of his brothers in the faith. Philo, Opp. t. ii. p. 646, ed. 
 
 Mang., orin Eusebius, Prep. Evang. lib. viii. c. xiv. p. 398, ed. Paris. 
 Tns Supias ἐπι θαλαττῃ πολις ἐστιν, ᾿Ασκαλων ὀνομα' yevouevos ἐν ταυτῃ καθ᾽ 
 
THE CANONS NOT DIFFERENT 63 
 
 a rivalry between both for an equality in all things. The 
 Egyptians built a temple after the model of the temple at 
 Jerusalem and practised here as there their religion with 
 the same solemnities; the Egyptians read publicly in 
 their synagogues the five books of Moses, as in Palestine ; 
 but as an intolerant edict of Antiochus Epiphanes sup- 
 pressed the use of the Mosaical books in the synagogues, 
 and public readings out of the Prophets began then as a 
 matter of necessity, and afterwards, when the prohibition 
 ceased, Moses and the Prophets were read together each 
 Sabbath, the jealousy of the Egyptian Jews permitted 
 them not to be behind inthis respect. Finally, Jerusalem 
 was the place to which the Jews referred everything; the 
 customs and usages there at home they copied. Jerusalem 
 was the rallying point of all Jews who lived scattered 
 through Europe, Asia, and Africa, therefore that of the 
 Egyptian.‘ Under such circumstances, is it not to be 
 presumed? that the Jews in both countries agreed with 
 
 ὃν xpovov eis To marpwoy ἱερον ἐστελλομην εὐξομενος TE Kat θυρων, ἀμηχανον 
 τι πελειαδων TAnOos ... ἐθεασαμὴην. Still this was something extra- 
 ordinary, as the Egyptian Jews had their own temple in which, from the 
 time of its building, sacrifices were offered up. AndIam unable to 
 persuade myself that the Egyptian Jews sent regular sacrifices to 
 Jerusalem, as Hornemann, De Canone Philonis, § 10, admits. Jews in 
 Rome and Italy did so in general because they possessed no temple in 
 that country, but with the Jews in Egypt the reason fails. 
 
 * The thing is sufficiently well known. Though a matter of super- 
 fluity, I still refer to Hornemann, De Canone Phil. p. 8, who has proved 
 this by some passages from Philo, Opp. t. ii. p. 524 ed. Mang., p. 971 
 ed. Francf., and so on. 
 
 ° In the former edition the passage stood as follows: ‘By the fore- 
 going reasoning nothing is to be considered as demonstrated, nothing 
 as judicially decided, the presumptive inference alone is drawn that the 
 Egyptian and Palestinian canon was probably of the same extent.’ 
 When, however, the Zurich Library, Part i. § 178, objects, ‘In spite of 
 the intercourse between the Palestinian and Egyptian Jews, the Alex- 
 andrian synagogue may still have boasted of a more extensive collec- 
 tion of sacred writings, in which were to be found works of Enoch, 
 
64 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 regard to the collection of their sacred national Scrip- 
 ture ? 
 
 SECTION 22.—Second Ground for the Presumption. 
 
 Jesus Sirach the younger, and Philo, the New Testa- 
 ment and Josephus, as authors of Palestine and Egypt, 
 describe their ancient holy books, if not exactly with 
 the same words, yet still as to the main point and the 
 chief contents alike, by the expression, ‘ Law, Prophets, 
 and other writings.’ 
 
 1. Jesus Sirach, the grandson, who, about the year 
 140 before Christ, after his arrival in Egypt translated the 
 proverbs of his grandfather out of the Hebrew into the 
 Greek, speaks in the first prologue, which from reasons 
 to be found within it, appears to be his own composi- 
 tion, of the holy books of his nation which had been 
 already before his time translated into Greek and describes 
 them by ‘ Law, Prophets, and other books.’ ‘I beg you,’ 
 says he to his readers,! ‘ to read this translation with indul- 
 gence and attention and to pardon me, if, like those who 
 have ventured on like versions before me, I should have 
 failed to employ expressions sufficiently pertinent. For 
 Moses, &e.,’ what is to be replied? A ‘may’ is placed in opposition, 
 which no one would think of denying. The Egyptian synagogue may 
 have boasted of a more extensive collection of sacred writings (although 
 no traces of such are to be found); the forged books of Enoch and 
 Moses are named as if they had been received into the Egyptian syna- 
 gogues, although the remotest presumption for such a fact does not 
 exist. What answer can be given in such cases? 
 
 1 Prologus prior Jesu Sirach ... 6 vowos, kat at προφητειαι και τα 
 λοιπα των βιβλιων ov μικραν exer THY διαφοραν ἐν Eavroıs Aeyoueva, That 
 this prologue must be very old is evident, amongst other reasons, from 
 this, that the Hagiographa, 0'3\n3, is found rendered by ra Aoıma των 
 βιβλιων. Before the birth of Christ a general name was wanting to 
 
 designate all the books together which are now called Hagiographa. 
 A periphrasis therefore was always necessary. See above (§ 8). 
 
THE CANONS NOT DIFFERENT 65 
 
 the Hebrew phrase loses extremely when exchanged against 
 words of another language. This remark will not be con- 
 fined to this work, for also in the Law, Prophets, and 
 other books a great difference exists between the original 
 and the translation”! ‘The collection of the Hebrew 
 national books as it existed at that time in a Greek trans- 
 lation made in Egypt, forms the basis of this declaration ; 
 nothing is then more probable than that in this passage 
 a description of the canon of the Egyptian Jews is to be 
 sought for. 
 
 In another passage of this prologue the translator 
 boasts of his grandfather’s study of ‘the Law, the 
 Prophets, and the rest of the books of his nation.’? Now, 
 his grandfather lived in Palestine and studied the Pales- 
 tinian canon. And, since he here describes the Palestinian 
 canon as wellas the Egyptian in the same words, must not 
 the Jews in both lands have had the same canon? If the 
 one in Palestine were different from that in Egypt, Jesus 
 Sirach would have been compelled, by means of a few 
 additional words, or by the change of an expression, to 
 mark the distinction, in order to render himself more in- 
 telligible to his nearest reader, the Egyptian. 
 
 ! Jesus Sirach distinguishes then the proverbs of his grandfather, this 
 now so-called Apocryphon, precisely from the Law, Prophets, and other 
 books; is it possible, then, that he should have classed the Hebrew 
 original of the proverbs with the ‘ other books’ (as he renders the Hagio- 
 grapha), or even have conjectured that his version would be one day 
 included amongst them? Is this ancient passage not contradiction 
 enough to the ‘may’ of the Zurich Library (Part 1. ὃ 177)? ‘What 
 does the denomination Moses, Prophets, and Writings prove, when by 
 this expression (namely, writings) all pseudepigrapha and apocryphal 
 books of later times may be comprehended?’ What a nonentity is a 
 mere possibility when probable grounds for the contrary are in ex- 
 istence ! 
 
 2 Prolog. prior, 6 παππος μου Ἰησους ἐπὶ πλεῖον EavToy dous eis τε THY 
 TOV νομον Kal των προφήτων Kal τῶν ἄλλων πατριων βιβλιων ἀναγνωσιν. 
 
 F 
 
66 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 2. According to Philo, a native of Alexandria, the 
 Therapeute, a fanatical sect of Jews in Egypt, read in 
 their pious assemblies, not the fanatical writings of the 
 founder of their sect, but ‘ holy writings,’ as ‘ Law, Oracles 
 of the Prophets, Songs of Praise to God, and other books 
 by which the knowledge and fear of God become exalted and 
 perfected.’! Here, however, Philo speaks, not of the holy 
 books of the Egyptian Jews in general, but of those held 
 sacred by the fanatical Therapeute, and taken by them to 
 their religious meetings. That, however, the Therapeut 
 did not differ in regard to their holy books from the rest 
 of the Egyptian Jews, we are taught by the exact agree- 
 ment, in their description of the canon, of Jesus Sirach 
 and the Palestinian writers. 
 
 3. In the same manner as Jesus Sirach divides the 
 Egyptian canon into three parts and describes it there- 
 after, so does the New Testament distribute the Palestinian 
 into ‘ Law, Prophets, and Psalms’ (Luke xxiv. 44). 
 4, And with the Therapeutee in Egypt does Josephus 
 
 also agree in the closest manner, in his description of 
 the Palestinian canon. After it he gives the division, 
 ‘ Books of Moses,? Prophets, Hymns of Praise to God, and 
 books of a moral kind.’ 
 
 1 Philo, De Vita Contempl. Opp. t. ii. p. 475 ed. Mang. p. 893 ed. 
 Frankft. "Ev éxaorn δε oixia (according to the Frankfort edit. ἑκαστῳ δὲ 
 ἐστιν oiknua) tepov, 6 καλειται σεμνειον καὶ μοναστήριον, ἐν ᾧ μονουμενοι τα 
 του σεμνου βιου μυστηρια τελουνται, umdev εἰσκομιζοντες, μὴ ποτον, μὴ 
 σιτον, unde τι των ἄλλων ὅσα προς τας του σώματος χρειας ἄναγκαια, 
 ἄλλα vouovs Kat λογια θεσπισθεντα δια προφητων Kat ὕμνους Kat Ta ἄλλα, 
 οἷς ἐπιστημὴ και εὐσεβεια συναυξονται και τελειουνται, . . Evruyxavovres 
 yap τοις ἱεροις Ὕραμμασι, φιλοσοφουσι THY πατριον φιλοσοφιαν, ἀλληγορουν- 
 τες, ἐπειδὴ συμβολα Ta τὴς ῥητης Epumveias νομιζουσι φυσεως ἀποκεκρυμ- 
 uevns, ἐν ὑὕπονοιαις ÖnAovuevns. Ἔστι δε αὐτοις και συγγράμματα παλαιων 
 ἄνδρων, of τῆς αἱρησεως ἄρχηγεται γενόμενοι TOAAG μνήμεια THS ἀλληγο- 
 ρουμενοις ἰδεας AmeAımov, ; 
 
 3 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8. 
 
EGYPTIAN CANON 67 
 
 If the uniformity of the canon in both lands cannot 
 be formally demonstrated on these grounds, the pre- 
 sumption that it was so proceeds to the highest degree 
 of probability. In order to attain to a higher measure of 
 certainty in this matter, we will endeavour to delineate 
 the canon of the Egyptian and Palestinian Jews out of 
 their own authors respectively. 
 
 II. CANON OF THE JEWS IN EGYPT. 
 
 SECTION 23.— Sources. 
 
 We collect in the first place the evidence respecting 
 the canon of the Egyptians from Egyptian Jews. Pre- 
 cision, and the prudence not to become entangled in a 
 labyrinth without outlet, require us absolutely to set 
 aside the opinion of the Egyptian Christians respecting 
 the canon of the Old Testament. ‘These are too recent to 
 be capable of offering formal evidence; they judge, with- 
 out sound principle, merely from self-chosen points of 
 view, concerning the value of single books of the Old 
 Testament and the use to be made of them; and such 
 _ judgment can amount to no decisive value (sec. 18). 
 They gave their admiration also, as is known from 
 Origen, Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustin, to apocryphal 
 books, which with the Egyptian Jews, as we shall see 
 fetes on, stood in no estimation a 
 
 Hence we cannot use the Church Fathers just dasa 
 as sources of information concerning the Egyptian canon ; 
 but only the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament 
 and Philo. 
 
 F2 
 
68 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 24.—1. Alexandrian Version. 
 
 I mention the Alexandrian version here because in 
 modern times it has been used as a source ; but for me it 
 is closed up.! 
 
 1. It is affirmed that the Alexandrian version in the 
 oldest times contained only as many books as we now 
 usually reckon to the canon of the Old Testament. This, 
 however, hitherto has not been proved, but merely decided 
 by authority. And how else is it to be shown? ‘ From 
 information concerning the origin of the Alexandrian 
 translation’? Because Eleazer sent a Hebrew codex for 
 the preparation of this version to Egypt, is it necessarily 
 to be assumed that it was copied from an authentic 
 exemplar in Jerusalem and contained all our present 
 canonical books ? But is it even certain that Eleazer did 
 positively send for the help of the Alexandrian trans- 
 lator a Hebrew manuscript to Egypt, as the romance- 
 writer Aristeas pretende?? But allowing his tale of a 
 commissioned codex from Jerusalem to Egypt to be true, 
 is not the position taken for granted, which requires first 
 to be proved, that the Palestinian canon contained at that 
 time just as many books as we now reckon to it? What 
 a circle in reasoning! Nay, if any inference at all is to 
 be drawn from the history of Aristeas and his epitomiser, 
 Josephus, it must be that only the five books of Moses 
 composed the canon of the Alexandrians. For accord- 
 ing to Aristeas and Josephus only a manuscript of the 
 vowos, the Pentateuch, was sent by Eleazer to Egypt. 
 
 ' Chr. Fred. Schmidii, Historia Antiqua et Vindic. Canonis V. et 
 τ ΤΡ. 2A 25: 
 
 *Hodius, De Bibliorum Text. Orig. et Repertorium, Part i. 
 § 266 fi. 
 
EGYPTIAN CANON 69 
 
 Philo also allows at first the translation of only the five 
 books of Moses. 
 
 2. The Alexandrian translation arose gradually at 
 various times, upon various occasions, and by the labours 
 of different literati. Had it been shown by other evi- 
 dence that all the books contained in our edition of the 
 Bible had always from the oldest times had canonical 
 estimation, and that the translation of all of them at the 
 same time had been accomplished either by one or by an 
 association of learned Jews in Egypt, the conclusion 
 would be then in some measure probable that they were 
 laid altogether before the Egyptian Jews in a translation 
 because the value and estimation conceded to them were 
 equal. But this did not happen, and Isaiah, for instance, 
 who must always necessarily have formed a part of our | 
 canon, received a Greek investiture much later than 
 Moses. 
 
 3. And if they were all translated at once, a con- 
 clusion founded on their canonical rank in all respects 
 would rest upon but tottering ground. For the first 
 occasion for this work is unknown. Had the desire of 
 the Jews to read in Greek their books of religion in their 
 synagogues given cause for this translation it might then 
 be presumed, and not without colour of reason, that the 
 canonical books would be selected for this purpose, and no 
 translation, at least at that time, bestowed on the un- 
 canonical. But all antiquity affirms the undertaking to 
 have been merely a literary one. Ptolemy Philadelphus 
 wished the ‘Books of the Mosaical Law or the Jewish 
 Scriptures in general,’ translated, however, into Greek, 
 because the original was unintelligible to the Egyptian 
 Greeks, to be placed in his library ; and for this purpose 
 many apocryphal books must have been just as important 
 as any book of inspiration, which in the library of a 
 
70 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 heathen could obtain no preference over a mere human 
 work. 
 
 4, Finally, some of our apocryphal books were really 
 at avery early period laid in a translation before the 
 Egyptian Jews : for instance, the sentences of Jesus Sirach 
 tne elder, the letter of Mardochzeus, concerning the Feast 
 the Purim, &c.! Let it not be objected that this transla- 
 tion would never have attained to such universal estima- 
 tion unless it had contained all canonical books, to the 
 exclusion of all apocryphal ones; for it is known that 
 the Alexandrian version was half invested with divinity 
 through beguilement of the fable that the spirit of in- 
 spiration rested on the translators ! 
 
 SECTION 25.—2. Philo (flor. A. ©. 41). 
 
 Philo of Alexandria remains the only source from 
 whence we can draw materials for our inquiry into the 
 contents of the Alexandrian Canon. He lived exactly 
 at the time when our examination begins—namely, at the 
 time of Christ and the Apostles (sec. 19). He gives us, 
 however, nowhere in his writings an exact account of the 
 canon of the Old Testament; but here and there he lets 
 fall, in passing, as it were, lost unconnected propositions 
 which betray to us his opinion, and probably also that of 
 his brothers in the faith, respecting the value and esti- 
 mation of single books of the Old Testament. But these 
 exist only in scattered fragments, out of which it is im- 
 possible again to construct a whole; wherefore in the 
 absence of other and more perfect information, these 
 fragments must be regarded as of the highest value. 
 
 1 See Prologus prior of Jesus Sirach, and then the Greek version of 
 the book of Esther, at the end. 
 
PHILO ON THE CANON TI 
 
 SECTION 26.—Philo on the Apocrypha. 
 
 Philo was acquainted with the apocryphal writings 
 of the Old Testament, for he borrows expressions from 
 them; but he does not quote even once a single apocry- 
 phal book, much less does he allegorise their contents or 
 prove his propositions out of them.! That he takes no 
 notice of them, then, does not arise from a want of 
 acquaintance with them, which besides was not to be 
 expected from a man of his extensive reading, but 
 probably because he held them of little value, and— 
 were the conclusion too rash, should I add ?—because 
 he did not class them amongst the books esteemed in 
 his age holy and divine. For his disesteem of them 
 goes very far indeed. He does not even allow them the 
 respect which he extends to a Plato, Philolaus, a Solon, 
 Hippocrates, Heraclitus, and others, from whose writings 
 he often cites whole passages.! If an examination be 
 
 ! So decisively does Hornemann speak (Observationes ad Illustra- 
 tionem Doctrine de Canone N. T. ex Philone, p. 28, 29), and as he gives 
 the assurance of having read Philo’s writings entirely for the purpose 
 of ascertaining his opinion about the canon, he may require our accept- 
 ance without hesitation of his decisive sentence. I shall follow him, 
 therefore, chiefly in this section, with the exception of some of his 
 views where J differ from him; elsewhere his remarks will admit of 
 additional observations. 
 
 * The Zurich Library (Parti. § 178) objects: ‘Philo does not quote 
 the Apocrypha. But just as little as his silence about a canonical book 
 proves that it was not in the canon of the Egyptian Jews, just so 
 little does his silence about the Apocrypha prove this.’ Quite right ; 
 an argument drawn from silence will be termed by no one strong; 
 but, nevertheless, it merits not to be passed by with indifference. 
 It remains always certainly a striking circumstance that Philo quotes 
 not a single book of our Apocrypha, although they were so connected 
 with his purpose, and the contents of at least some of them so 
 valuable for his object. If neither of them were suited to his pas- 
 sion for allegory, what argument could be made to rest upon their 
 non-employment? But now his silence respecting them must draw 
 
ve INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 made of the indexes of the editions of Philo, particularly 
 of that of Mangey, so many passages from the apocryphal 
 books of the Old Testament will be found introduced as 
 to give the appearance of Philo having made considerable 
 use of them. But a startling deception results here as well 
 as elsewhere from the quotation of these passages in the 
 indexes. Some refer merely to remarks of the editor, in 
 
 at least attention towards them. ‘In the first place the circumstance 
 that Philo never quotes these books does not yet prove his contempt 
 for them. The fame, perhaps, of some of them the most naturally 
 connected with the subjects of his meditation, as the Wisdom of 
 Solomon (which some persons even attribute to him), was not yet spread 
 abroad.’ And yet does the writer declare in the very next page that it 
 had already occurred to Josephus to find the Wisdom of Solomon, the 
 third book of Esdras, Tobias, Baruch, and additional fragments to Daniel 
 and Esther connected with the Greek Bible. And the Greek Jew Philo 
 is not to be acquainted with these books; the learned Philo is to be so 
 uninstructed in the writings of his nation! ‘Others,’ proceeds the 
 writer, ‘he had never occasion to cite, which of many apocryphal, as 
 well as of some canonical, books is certainly very probable. ‘ Further, 
 he might have contemned the Apocrypha without thereby furnishing a 
 clue to the judgment of the Greek synagogue respecting them. He 
 held even the historical contents of the holy writings at not too high ἃ 
 rate, and his mode of thinking, formed after the philosophy of Plato, 
 differed as much, perhaps, from that of other Jews, as the notions of 
 Maimonides, Orobius, and Moses Mendelssohn, from the ideas and 
 opinions of their Jewish contemporaries.’ But would he dare in this 
 case to publish them in writing? Would he have dared to abandon 
 the belief of the whole of his nation without drawing down upon him- 
 self the consequences, hard to bear, of a grievous heresy ? Have the 
 Jews named, or those not named, of distinguished enlightenment, ever 
 published in writing their abandonment of the national faith, or at 
 least without great opposition? Moreover, the probability only that 
 his opinion of the canon was the national opinion is adopted ; his scat- 
 tered expressions are collected with the view of ascertaining the opinion 
 held by the most learned and famous man amongst the Alexandrian 
 Jews concerning the Hebrew writings. And since no traces are to be 
 found that he abandoned, in writing, the belief and the opinions of his 
 nation, the conjecture is ventured on that the opinion of his Egyptian 
 contemporaries as to the canon coincided with his. 
 
PHILO ON THE CANON 73 
 
 which sometimes a word, sometimes a reading, is cleared 
 up by some passage of an apocryphal book,! sometimes a 
 reference is made because Philo had expressed some 
 similar sentiment ? or something exactly the contrary. ὃ 
 
 SECTION 27.—Philo on the Canonical Books 7 the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 Hornemann arranges the books of the Old Testament 
 after the verdict of Philo into three classes :— 
 
 1. Books quoted with the express declaration that 
 they are of Divine origin. 
 
 2. Books which are simply cited. 
 
 3. Books of which no mention is made by him. 
 
 We will even here, however, collect Philo’s sentiments 
 on the separate Scriptures of the Old Testament in the 
 given order, carefully keeping apart those books respecting 
 which Philo expresses no decisive opinion, which Horne- 
 mann has not always done. 
 
 SECTION 28.—First Class. Scriptures to which Philo 
 attributes a Divine Origin. 
 
 All the books which, according to Philo, are of Divine 
 original are termed in his language ‘ Works of the Pro- 
 phets.’ Still he does not always apply to their authors 
 the name προφητης, but alternates it with προφητὴς 
 avnp, ἱεροφαντης, θεσπεσιος avnp, Mwücsws θιασωτης. 
 Tis των φοιτητων Μωΐσεως, Mwücsws étatpos, tov 
 προφητίκου θιασωτης χρονοῦ, all which are current with 
 
 ‘ Hornemann, De Canone Philonis, § 31, note n, has made an excep- 
 tion of the passages of this kind from the indexes, which, however, to 
 save space, I shall not copy. 
 
 * See the collection of these passages at the place referred to, § 29, 
 
 note m. 
 ® See the same, ὃ 31, note mm. 
 
74 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 him as perfect synonyms of προφητης. The books them- 
 selves he sometimes terms tepas ypadas, sometimes ispas 
 βιβλους, sometimes tepov Aoyov, sometimes ispwrarov 
 γραμμα;, sometimes ἑεροφαντηθεντα, sometimes προφητικὸν 
 λόγον, or προφητικα ῥηματα, sometimes λογίον only, or 
 also Aoyıov του Θεοῦ, sometimes χρήσμον or To χρησθεν. 
 All these are convertibles with him, as is evident partly 
 from the expressions themselves and partly from the 
 passages in which they appear. 
 
 In order to comprehend these expressions in the spirit 
 of Philo, and to form an adequate conception of the 
 judgment conveyed in them as to the sacred books of his 
 nation, it is necessary to premise his exalted idea of a 
 prophet. Prophets, with him, mean interpreters of God 
 (ἑρμηνεις του Θεου), instruments of God employed by 
 Him to make that known which it is His will should be 
 known. They proffer nothing of their own, but matter 
 altogether foreign to themselves, and communicated to 
 them internally by the operation of God. So long as the 
 state of a prophet be rapture, he knows nothing of him- 
 self; the Divine Spirit having once effected his subjection 
 operates on his intellect as well as on his organs of speech ; 
 on the former for the revelation of things unknown, upon 
 the latter to enable them to utter the words communicated 
 to them.! 
 
 1 Philo, De Monarchia, lib. i. Opp. t. i. p. 222 M., p. 820 Fr. After 
 he has spoken of Moses, he proceeds: €punvets yap εἰσιν of προφηται 
 Θεου, καταχρωμενου τοις ἐκεινων dpyavots προς SnAwow ὧν ἂν ἐθελησῃ. . . » 
 De Legibus special. Opp. t. ii. p. 848: mpopnrns δὲ μὲν yap οὐδεν 
 ἰδιον ἀποφαινεται [ ἀποφθεγγεται) TO παραπαν, GAA’ ἐστιν Epunveus, ὑποβαλ- 
 Aovros Erepov πανθ᾽ ὅσα προφερει, Kat καθ᾽ ὃν xpovov ἐνθουσιᾳ Yeyovws 
 ἐν ἄγνοιᾳ, μετανισταμενου μεν του λογισμου και παρακεχωρήκοτος THY TNS 
 Wuxns ἀκροπολιν, EMIMEDOLTNKOTOS δὲ καὶ ἐνοικήηκοτος Tov θειου πνευματοξ, 
 και πασαν τῆς φωνὴς ὀργανοποιΐαν κρουοντος Se καὶ ἐνηχουντος εἰς ἐναργη 
 δηλωσιν ὧν προθεσπιζει. Quis Rerum divin. Heres sit, Opp. t. i. p. 510 
 M., p. 517 Fr.: προφητης yap ἴδιον μεν οὐδὲν ἀποφθεγγεται, GAAoTpIA δε 
 
PHILO ON THE CANON 75 
 
 Finally, in his opinion, Moses was the greatest 
 prophet, and if it be the purpose of Philo to use ex- 
 tremely strong language as to the inspiration of any 
 writer, he makes the prophetical spirit of Moses the 
 measure by which he metes out the spirit of prophecy 
 to others. Hence the expressions Mwicews éraipos, 
 Μωύσεως- θιασωτης, Tis Tov φοιτητων Mwürsws. 
 
 SECTION 29.—Five Books of Moses, Joshua, First Book 
 of Samuel, Ezra. 
 
 Of Moses and the first five books left behind by him, 
 Philo employs the strongest expressions. Moses he terms 
 sometimes a mpodntns, sometimes an tepodavrns,' and 
 so on; his inspiration is the scale by which he estimates 
 that of other writers (s. 28). His writings he calls 
 προφητικον λογον, or iepas βιβλους.2 He writes glosses 
 upon some passages of all five books, and all references 
 to them are expressed in the same exalted style. Genesis 
 he calls iepas ypadas,> the second book of Moses 
 
 παντα, ὑπηχουντος ἕτερουι De Premiis et Penis, Opp. t. 11. p. 417 M., 
 p. 918 F.: €punveus yap ἐστιν ὃ προφητης, ἐνδοθεν ὕπηχουντος Ta λεκτεα 
 του Θεου. 
 
 1 Philo, Adleg. lib. ii. Opp. t. ii. p. 66 ed. Mang., p. 1087 ed. Frankf. : 
 6 mpopntns. All. lib. iii. Opp. t. i. p. 117 ed. Mang., p. 89 Frkf.: 6 
 ἱεροφαντης. Ibid. Opp. t. i. p. 121 M., p. 92 Fr.: ὁ ἱεροφαντης καὶ προ- 
 gntns. De Gigant. Opp. t. i. p. 270 M., p. 231 Fr.: 6 ἱεροφαντης ὀργιων 
 kat διδασκαλος Heiwv, &c. Hornemann, ὃ 34, 35, has gathered still 
 further passages in which the expressions quoted reciprocate with 
 others of like meaning, and which I for the sake of brevity pass by. 
 
 2 Alleg. lib. iii. p. 92 M., p. 68 Fr.: De Plant. Noe, Opp. t.i. p. 347 
 M., p. 230 Fr.: De Congressu quer. Erudit. gratia, Opp. t. i. p. 543 M., 
 p. 448 Fr.: 6 προφητικος Aoyos. De Vita Mosis, lib. iii. Opp. t. ii. p. 163 
 M., p. 681 Fr.: tepa: βιβλοι. Here are also many passages in support by 
 Hornemann, § 36, in which these expressions alternate with others of 
 ‘Similar meaning. 
 
 3 De Mundi Opif. Opp. t. i. p. 18 M.,p. 16 Fr. See like expressions, 
 
76 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 tepav BıßAov,! the third ἱερον λογον," the fourth ἱερω- 
 τατον ypaupa,® the fifth book finally xpnopov* and 
 ἱερον Aoyov.? 
 
 The book of Joshua is termed on the occasion of being 
 quoted—chap. 1. 5—Aoyıov του ἵλεω Ocov.® 
 
 From the first Book of Samuel, which with Philo, as 
 with all the writers who use the LXX interpreters, passes 
 for the first Book of Kings, chap. i. 11 is quoted with the 
 formula: ὧς ὁ tepos Aoyos bau.’ 
 
 From the Book of Esau, chap. viii. 2 is cited, and the 
 contents of the passage described as ta ἐν βασιλικαις 
 βιβλοις ἱεροφαντηθεντα.3 
 
 SECTION 30.—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Zechariah, 
 Psalms, Proverbs. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah is called by Philo tov maraı προ- 
 φητην," and his prophecies mpodyrira pnuwata.' 
 
 Jeremiah is with him προφητης, μυστης, iepobavrns, 
 and the passage (chap. 111. 4) which he cites he terms 
 xpnopov.'!! In another place Jeremiah is described as a 
 member of the prophetical choir, that spoke in transport : 
 
 De Abrah. p. i. Ὁ. ii. M., p. 349 Fr. Resipwit Noe, t. i. p. 400 M., p. 281 
 Fr., and so on. 
 
 1 De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. Ὁ. i. p. 433 M., p. 390 Fr., and so on. 
 
 Lib. iii. Alleg. t. i. Opp. p. 85 M., p. 1007 Fr. De Somniis, Opp 
 t. i. p. 633 M., p. 577 Fr. 
 
 3 De eo, quod Deus sit immutabilis, Opp. t. i. p. 273 M., p. 249 Fr. 
 De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t.i. p. 457 M., p. 409 Fr. 
 
 * De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 454 M., p. 405 Fr. 
 
 5 De Somniis, Opp. t. i. p. 657 M., p. 601 Fr. 
 
 6 De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 480 M., p. 344 Fr. 
 
 7 De Temulent. Opp. t. i. p. 379 M., p. 261 Fr. 
 
 8 De Confus. Linguarum, Opp. t. i. p. 427 M., p. 341 Fr. 
 
 ®» De Somniis, Opp. t. i. p. 681 M., p. 1132 Fr. 
 
 10 De Mutat. Nom. Opp. ὑ. 1. p. 604 M., p. 1071 Fr. 
 
 1! De Cherubim, Opp. t. i. p. 147, 148 M., p. 116 Fr. 
 
PHILO ON THE CANON 77 
 
 του προφητίκου θιασωτης χορου os καταπνεύσθεις ἐνθου. 
 σίων avebdey&aro.! And in another place he says that 
 ‘God, the Father of all things, has spoken through the 
 mouth of Jeremiah ’—o πατὴρ των ὅλων ἐθεσπισε δια 
 προφετικου στοματος ᾿Ἰερεμιου.3 
 
 Of the Lesser Prophets, in Philo’s writings, only two 
 are quoted—Hosea and Zechariah. 
 
 Hosea xiv. 8 Philo terms χρησθεν παρα τινι των προ- 
 φητων,} and Hosea xiv. 24 στοματι προφητίικῳ θεσπι- 
 σθεντα διαπυρον χρησμον." 
 
 Zacharias, in the quotation chap. v. 12, is entitled 
 Moicews Eraıpos.? | 
 
 The Psalms are abundantly quoted by Philo, but in 
 most cases with an intimation of their high origin. David 
 is distinguished by the same descriptions as Moses ; some- 
 times he is called προφητης," sometimes προφητης ἀνηρ, 
 sometimes θεσπεέσιος avnp,® sometimes ‘colleague’ of 
 Moses, not his inferior, Μωύσεως θιασωτης os ουχι των 
 ἠμελημένων nv, Sometimes &taıpos Mwücsws.!? 
 
 Expressions of a like high nature he employs of Solo- 
 mon as the author of the Proverbs. He styles him a 
 member ἐκ tou θείου xopov,!! and in another place τίνα 
 τῶν φοιτητων Mwicews.” 
 
 1 De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 411 M., p. 326 Fr. 
 
 2 De Profugis, Opp. t. i. p. 575 M., p. 479 Fr. 
 
 3 De Plantat. Noe, Opp. t.i. p. 350 M., p. 233 Fr. 
 
 4 De Mutat. Nom. Opp. t. i. p. 599 M., p. 1066 Fr. 
 
 5 De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 414 M., p. 329 Fr. 
 
 6 De Agricult. Opp. t. i. p. 308 M., p. 195 Fr. 
 
 7 Quis Rerum divin. Heres sit, Opp. t. i. p. 515 M., p. 522 Fr. 
 
 8 De Plant. Noe, Opp. t. i p. 344 M., p. 218 Fr. Compare De 
 
 Mundo, Opp. t. ii. p. 608 M., p. 1157 Fr. 
 
 ®° De Plant. Noe, ed. Francf. p. 219. | 
 - ' Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, Opp. ὕ. 1. p. 691 M., p. 1141 Fr. 
 
 " De Ebrietate, Opp. t. i. p. 362 M., p. 244 Fr. 
 
 2 De Congressu quer. Erud. gratia, Opp. t. i. p. 544 M., p. 449 Fr. 
 
78 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 31.—Second Class of Writings mentioned by Philo, 
 
 without the intimation of a Divine Origin. 
 
 From the Book of Judges, styled by Philo ἡ τῶν ypn- 
 ματων ἀναγραφομεμὴη BıßAos, chap. vill. 9, according to 
 the LXX, is quoted." 
 
 Job xiv. 4 is introduced by him into his text without 
 further observation.” 
 
 The First Book of Kings (according to Philo and the 
 LXX, the third) is allegorised in several places.? 
 
 Also many separate Psalms, without the intimation of 
 a higher origin, are simply quoted by him.‘ 
 
 ! De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 424 M., p. 339 Fr. 
 
 2 De Mutat. Nom. Opp. t. i. p. 584 M., p. 1051 Fr. 
 
 3 De Gigant. Opp. t. i. p. 274 M., p. 295 Fr. Compare 1 Samuel ii. 5. 
 De Ebriet. Opp. t. i. p. 380 M., p. 261, 262 Fr. Compare 1 Samuel i. 
 14,15. De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t.i. p. 467 M., p. 418 Fr. Compare 
 1 Samuel x. 22. De Mutat. Nom. Opp. t. i. p. 600 M., p. 1007 Fr. 
 Compare 1 Samuel ii. 5. Quod Deus sit immut. Opp. t.i. p. 293 M., 
 p. 313 Fr. Compare 1 Kings xvii. 10, 18, ix.9. De Migrat. Abrah. 
 Ὁ. 1. p. 441 M., p. 394 Fr. Quis Rerum divin. Heres sit, Opp. t. 1. p. 483 
 M., p. 491 Fr. Compare 1 Kings ix. 9. 
 
 * Quod Deus sit immut. Opp. t. i. p. 284 M., p. 304 Fr. Compare 
 Psalms ci. 1, xxv. 8, and in the same compare the following pages with 
 Psalm Ixiii. 11. De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 460 M., p. 412 Fr. 
 Compare Psalms ΙΧΧΧ, 5, xlii.3. De Mutat. Nom. Opp. t. i. p. 590 M., 
 p. 1062 Fr. Compare Psalm xxii.1. Quod a Deo mitt. Somnia, Opp. 
 Ὁ. i. p. 632 M., p. 576 Fr. Compare Psalm xxvi. 1. De Confus. Ling. 
 Opp. t. i. p. 411 M., p. 327 Fr. Compare Psalm xliv. 13. De Profugis, 
 Opp. t. i. p. 545 M., p. 459 Fr. Compare Psalm cxiii. 25. De Somniis, 
 Opp. t. i. p. 691 M., p. 1141 Fr. Compare Psalm xlvi. 5. It is evident 
 from these passages that all the books of the Psalms, which at different 
 times had been brought into a whole, were quoted by Philo. 
 
PHILO ON THE CANON 79 
 
 Section 82.—Third Class. Writings not mentioned 
 by Philo at all. 
 
 Philo never speaks (1) of Nehemiah, (2) Ruth, (9) 
 Esther, (4) Chronicles, (5) Daniel, (6) Lamentations of 
 Jeremiah, (7) Ecclesiastes, (8) the Song of Songs. 
 
 Section 33.—Some Remarks upon and Result of the 
 
 preceding Inquiry. 
 
 I, To the Jewish writings whose Divine origin is 
 expressly acknowledged by Philo, with the highest pro- 
 bability, and even in Philo’s own sense, the following may 
 be added :— 
 
 1. The Second Book of Samuel and the two Books of 
 Kings. For the First Book of Samuel he terms ἱερον 
 λογον (s. 29). Now, he, as well as all writers who follow 
 the LXX, considers the two Books of Samuel and the two 
 Books of Kings as one entire work or single book, which 
 is again by them distributed into four parts or books. 
 Whoever, then, affirms the first of these four books to be 
 iepos Aoyos implies the same character to the remaining 
 three. — 
 
 2. All the twelve Lesser Prophets. As far as we can 
 trace backwards the literary history of the Bible we find 
 the twelve Lesser Prophets always regarded as one book, 
 Sirach xlix. 10. Whoever, then, cites one of the Lesser 
 Prophets—and Philo cites two of them with the express 
 recognition of a Divine origin—cites in fact all. 
 
 II. Since, however, the apocryphal books were known 
 to Philo, but not one of them has been quoted by him 
 (s. 26), we may safely consider all the books of his nation 
 deemed by him worthy of quotation to be in his judgment 
 genuine, ancient, and holy writings. The mere citation of 
 
80 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 a book is, then, to be taken as a proof that it was contained 
 in Philo’s canon, and the books between which hitherto 
 for the sake of impartiality we have made a distinction 
 drawn from the formula of citation, may henceforth with- 
 out hesitation be thrown into one class. 
 
 III. Wherefore the following books may be taken as 
 having certainly belonged to the canon of Philo or of the 
 Egyptian Jews :— 
 
 1. Five Books of Moses. 7. Isaiah. 
 
 2. Joshua. 8. Jeremiah. 
 
 3. Judges. 9. 12 Lesser Prophets. 
 4. 2 Books of Samuel. 10. Psalms. 
 
 5. 2 Books of Kings. 11. Proverbs. 
 
 6. Ezra. 12. Job. 
 
 IV. The others may have also stood in the Egyptian 
 canon. Probably Ruth was an annex to the Book of 
 Judges, Nehemiah, the second part of Ezra, and the Lamen- 
 tations of Jeremiah in all likelihood joined on to his 
 prophecies, as in Palestine (ss. 21, 22, and 53 &c.). 
 Philo, however, says nothing on this point, or of the exist- 
 ence of the books. Our knowledge, then, of the Egyptian 
 canon is imperfect. But neither this imperfectness, nor 
 the silence of Philo, can affect the canonical reputation 
 of any book as long as no other hostile grounds exist 
 (s. 25). 
 
 SECTION 34.—Canon of the Therapeute. 
 
 Finally, an inquiry into the canon of single Jewish 
 sects in Egypt is scarcely worth the pains; it belongs 
 rather to the history of their opinions than to that of the 
 canon. For the purpose of our inquiry only the opinion 
 of the majority of the Jews can be of importance, and not 
 that of separate religious parties. In the meantime, 
 
CANON OF THE SADDUCEES 81 
 
 however, it is extremely probable that the fanatical 
 Therapeutez at least did not differ from the rest of the 
 Egyptian Jews with respect to the canon (sec. 22).} 
 
 III. CANON OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. 
 
 SECTION 35.—Sources: Canon of the Sadducees and 
 Samaritans. 
 
 At the time of Christ and the Apostles, amidst the 
 various sects and parties into which the Jews in 
 Palestine were divided, there appears to have been no 
 difference of opinion as to the number of their sacred books. 
 The Fathers of the Church have, however, at times declared 
 that the Sadducees probably rejected all the writings of 
 the Old Testament except the five books of Moses ;? and some 
 modern critics consider this supposition as well grounded, 
 because Jesus, on a certain occasion, endeavoured to con- 
 vince the Sadducees of the resurrection of the dead, con- 
 cerning which they doubted, not out of the Prophets and 
 Hagiographa, but merely out of Moses, just as if they 
 allowed to the former no value, and no weight in the 
 decision of a disputed question.? 
 
 If the school of the Sadducees had arisen in times so 
 ancient that only a part of our present writings of the Old 
 Testament was then in existence, any difference of their 
 opinion as to the number of books constituting the collec- 
 tion would admit of an easy explanation by reference to 
 the time of their origin: they had accepted only those 
 books acknowledged as sacred before their separation, and 
 
 1 See (§ 22) the passage quoted from Philo; but Josephus De Bello 
 Jud. lib. ii. c. 8, § 6, at the end of § 12, cannot be used asa proof. It 
 says only that the Essenes possessed holy books. 
 
 2 Hieronymus, in Matth. Origenes, Contra Celsum, lib. i, 
 
 . § Matth. xxii. 23. Rich. Simon, Hist. Crit. du N, T. lib. i. c. 16. 
 G 
 
82 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 rejected all the rest, because proceeding from authors who 
 did not belong to their sect. But since they arose from 
 amid the multitude at a time when the sacred volume with 
 the Jews had long been fixed in point of extent, and the 
 completion of the canon effected; since there was no in- 
 superable difficulty in reconciling their doctrines with all 
 the writings of the Old Testament as soon as their compati- 
 bility with the Mosaical books was shown; a divergence 
 from the opinion of other Jews on this head would be un- 
 expected and difficult of explanation with reference to the 
 time of their rise. Josephus, who was so intimately 
 acquainted with the doctrines of the Pharisees, knows of 
 no opinion peculiar to them in this respect; he relates 
 merely that, with the rejection of all traditions, they held 
 only to the written Law, without declaring how many 
 books they reckoned to their sacred national writings ; 
 and when he mentions the doctrines which distinguished 
 the Sadducees from the Pharisees, he does not suffer an 
 expression to escape him from whence any difference of 
 opinion of these two sects as to the number of their sacred 
 books can be inferred. Would the dignity of the high-priest’s 
 office have been accessible also to Sadducees, if their belief 
 on so important a point had varied from that of the entire 
 nation ? and since both before and at the time of Christ a 
 Sadduceean family had long appropriatedthis dignity, how 
 could they with propriety have enjoined the reading of the 
 Haphtaren together with the Parashen if denying to the 
 Prophets an equal estimation with Moses? And if we 
 may build at all upon the disputes between the Pharisees 
 and the Sadducees in the Talmud, R. Gamaliel does not 
 prove the resurrection of the dead merely out of Moses, 
 but also from the Prophets and the Hagiographa, without 
 any exception on the part of his antagonists the Sadducees 
 against the value and weight of the latter in matters of theo- 
 
CANON OF THE SADDUCEES 83 
 
 logical dispute; on the contrary, admitting their validity, 
 they sought to weaken the strength of proof of the cited 
 passages on other grounds. Under such circumstances, 
 the opinion respecting the agreement of the Sadducees and 
 Pharisees upon the point of the number of their sacred 
 national books can by no means be weakened by a con- 
 jecture of the Church Fathers; and if Christ, upon the 
 occasion of a dispute with the Sadducees, proves the 
 resurrection of the dead only from Moses, this must be 
 altogether accidental.! 
 
 The Samaritans, then, alone accept only the Pentateuch, 
 and reject all the other books of our present canon. Were 
 the causes of this rejection on their part even not known 
 (sec. 383), nothing could be inferred from it against the 
 present extent of the Hebrew canon. They may in- 
 struct us as to the private opinion of their party, but not 
 as to that of the Jews; information concerning the latter 
 we can only acquire from the New Testament, Josephus, 
 the Christian Doctors of the first century after the birth 
 of Christ, Melito, Origen, Jerome, and the Talmud. Even 
 the later Church Fathers are too modern for our in- 
 struction. 
 
 ! Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, t. ii. Part i. p. 325 ff., and out of him 
 Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. t. ii. p. 721, have decided this question in the 
 same way. Basnage may, for the sake of retaining the precious suffrages 
 of the Church Fathers, affirm the Sadducees to have conceded a much 
 greater respect to the writings of Moses than to other scriptures; to 
 which Brucker has provided the right answer, that there are no proofs 
 to the point in existence, and that, for the sake of a few Church Fathers, 
 there was no necessity for grasping at such a desperate remedy. The 
 good Fathers may have erred. 
 
84 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 36.—1. The New Testament. 
 
 The New Testament appeals to the Old in innumerable 
 places, but nowhere does it enumerate the component parts 
 thereof. That, indeed, was not to be expected. When 
 Christ and the Apostles referred to the whole, everybody 
 at that time knew—or, if he did not know, had the certain 
 means of acquiring the information—what books and how 
 many were its constituents. Hence we must he satis- 
 fied with deriving what aid we can from the incidental 
 citations of single passages; and cannot expect, simply on 
 account of their incidental character, any complete idea 
 of the canon of the Old Testament in its full extent and 
 in reference to all its greater and lesser parts. If not a 
 single trace of many individual books of our present 
 canon of the Old Testament is to be found in the New, 
 their judgment of condemnation is not yet pronounced. 
 For the argument drawn from the silence respecting them 
 could only gain the strength of proof when it is shown 
 that Christ and His Apostles were under a necessity of 
 speaking of each book separately. 
 
 SEcTION 37.—Citata of the New Testament. 
 
 The citations from the Old Testament in the New are 
 of two kinds: some books are quoted for the establish- 
 ment of religious truths—therefore, from the use made of 
 them, declared to be divine; these, therefore, without 
 hesitation are taken to be canonical. Others are merely 
 quoted sometimes for illustration, sometimes to furnish 
 parallel passages. To the first class belong beyond doubt 
 Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms; to the second all 
 our other canonical books of the Old Testament excepting 
 the book of Judges, the Preacher, the Song of Songs, 
 Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which are never referred to. 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 85 
 
 SECTION 38.—2. Josephus (nat. A. ©. 37). 
 
 Josephus, next to the New Testament, is the chief 
 author to be interrogated, in an inquiry into the Pales- 
 tinian canon. He wasa contemporary of the Apostles and 
 must as a priest have had the most perfect knowledge of 
 the canon of his nation, because, as it appears, an authentic 
 collection of the canonical books was preserved in the 
 temple (sec. 39). Moreover, he was an acute inquirer 
 after truth, and would never have enumerated amongst the 
 sacred books of his nation any work not universally 
 acknowledged as such, in order not to increase the sub- 
 jects of reproach levelled against Jewish history.! It is 
 therefore much to be lamented that he nowhere makes a 
 complete review of all the books of his canon, and, with 
 the exception of a general enumeration, merely lets fall 
 here and there, as if by accident, solitary expressions to 
 lead to a more precise designation. 
 
 SECTION 39.— Whether he puts forward the General Opinion 
 of his Brothers in the Faith respecting the Canon of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 The word xavov was never applied by him to the 
 collection of the holy books of his nation. It was also in 
 his time not in use in this sense. But he speaks of ‘holy 
 books composed by Prophets before the death of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus, and preserved in the temple.2 This would be 
 Josephus’s true idea of what is now termed κανων. And 
 since he sets out with this idea it is evident that asa 
 Pharisee he cherished no opinion respecting the canon of 
 
 * Read his famous passage Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8, at the beginning. 
 * See below (8 46) note 2, and the passage Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8, 
 Ato Mwicews, &c. 
 
86 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the Old Testament different from that of his brothers in 
 the faith; or, if even he were wedded to a particular 
 opinion he at least brings none such forward in the 
 passages named. Even the coherency of his evidence 
 respecting the canonical collection of the books of his 
 nation and the generalised nature of the expression leaves 
 no room for doubt on the subject. He says, for instance, 
 ‘ After Artaxerxes down to our times, indeed, a record of 
 everything has been kept, but to these writings the same 
 faith is not attached as to those early compositions.’ Had 
 Josephus wished to bring forward his private opinion, as 
 contradistinguished from the public opinion, of the canon, 
 he would doubtless have used a more limited expression— 
 ‘not in my opinion so worthy of faith as those,’ or ‘not in 
 the estimation of the Pharisees so credible as those ’—par- 
 ticularly as it is his general practice to distinguish pre- 
 cisely between public and private opinions. Finally it is 
 probable from many passages, in his Archeology at least, 
 that in the years of his manhood he left the Pharisaical 
 sect to which in his youth he had been attached. Now 
 since he wrote his books against Apion at a later time than 
 his Archeology, it is impossible that he should have 
 followed Pharisaical principles in this work.! 
 
 SECTION 40.—Chief Passage. 
 
 Josephus writes in the famous passage against Apion 
 to maintain at once the credibility of the Hebrew historians 
 and of the history itself. He appeals, therefore, partly to 
 the harmony of profane history with that of the Jews and 
 partly to the great accuracy with which the historical 
 books of his nation were written. None of the books of 
 Hebrew history are inconsistent with the rest, because 
 
 ‘ Spittler, De Usu Versionis Alexandrine apud Josephum (Goetting. 
 1779), pp. 4, 5. 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 87 
 
 the record of Hebrew events was not competent to every 
 one, for Prophets alone were the historiographers of his 
 nation. Hereupon commences the important passage, 
 given also by Eusebius with some trifling variations.! 
 Ov yap μυριαδες βιβλιων εἰσι παρ᾽ ἡμιν, ἀσυμφωνων 
 Kat μαχομενων " δυο δε μονα mpos τοις εἰκοσι βιβλια, του 
 παντος ἔχοντα Xpovov την ἀναγραφην, τα δικαίως θεια" 
 πεπιστευμενα. Και τουτων πεντε μεν ἐστι τα Mwücews, 
 ἁ TOUS τε νομους περίεχει καὶ τὴν της ἀνθρωπογονίιας 
 παραδοσιν, HEXPL THS αὐτου τελευτης. Οὗτος ὁ χρονος 
 ἀπολείπει τρισχίλιων OALyov ἔτων. "Amro δε της Μωύσεως 
 ? — 
 τελευτης μεχρι THS ᾿Αρταξερξου, Tov μετα Ἐξερξην llepowv 
 βασίλεως, ἀρχης,) οἱ μετα Mavonv mpobnraı ta κατ᾽ 
 αὐτους πραχθεντα συνεγραψαν ἐν τρίσι και δεκα BußAuoıs. 
 Aide λούπαι τεσσαρες ὕμνους Eis τον Θεον και τοις ἀνθρω- 
 e 9 ὃ 9 
 ποις ὑποθηκας του βιου περιέχουσιν. ’Amo δε᾿ Αρταξερξου 
 μέχρι του καθ᾽ ἡμας χρονου γεγραπται μεν ἕκαστα, πίστεως 
 δε οὐχ ὁμοιας ἠξιωται THs προ αὐτων, δια TO um γενεσθαι. 
 » 53 3 
 τὴν των προφητων ἀκριβη διαδοχην. Δηλον δ᾽ ἐστιν ἐργῳ, 
 πως ἡμεις TOLS ἰδιοις γραμμασι πεπιστευκαμεν. Τοσουτου 
 yap αἰωνος non TAPWXNKOTOS, OUTE προσθειναῖι TLS οὐδεν." 
 > > A, 5 > > θ TI 
 οὐτε ἀφελειν ὅ αὐτων, ovTE μεταθειναι TeroAumke. llacı 
 de συμφυτον ἐστιν εὐθυς ἐκ THS TPWTNS γενεσεως ’lovöauoıs, 
 το νομέξειν © αὐτα Θεου δογματα, και τουτοις ἐμμενειν,᾿ 
 και ὑπερ αὐτων, εἰ δεοι, θνησκειν Hoes. 
 
 1 Josephus, Contra Ap. 110. 1. § 8. Compare Eusebius in Histor. 
 Eccles. 10 p. m. 103, 104. 
 
 2 The word θεια did not stand in the old editions of Josephus ; it was 
 interpolated into Eusebius in modern times. 
 
 3 The greater number of MSS. of Josephus and Eusebius leave this 
 Gpxns out. See below, § 41. 
 
 4 Οὐδεν is wanting in Eusebius. The sense remains the same. 
 
 5 Eusebius has ἀφελεῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτων. 
 
 $ The false reading ὀνομαζειν αὐτα has been corrected from Euse- 
 bius. 
 
 7 Eusebius, ἐπιμενειν. 
 
88 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ‘For we do not possess numberless books which con- 
 tradict one another, but only twenty-two, which contain the 
 history of all past times and are justly entitled to credit’ 
 (according to Eusebius, ‘justly held to be divine’). ‘ Five 
 of these books come down from Moses, and contain laws and 
 the account of the origin of mankind, and go down to his 
 death. This space falls but a little short of 3,000 years. 
 From Moses’ death to the reign of Artaxerxes’ (according to 
 Eusebius, ‘ from Moses’ death to the death of Artaxerxes’), 
 ‘who after Xerxes reigned over the Persians, the events 
 of their times were recorded in thirteen books by the 
 prophets who lived after Moses. The other four books 
 contain hymns of praise to God and maxims of morals for 
 men. From the times of Artaxerxes down to our days, all 
 events have indeed been recorded, but these writings are 
 not held entitled to the same credit as those early histories, 
 because since that epoch no regular succession of Prophets 
 has existed. What credibility we ascribe to our books is 
 evident from our conduct. For notwithstanding the lapse of 
 so long an interval of time, no one has hitherto dared to 
 make any additions, diminutions, or alterations therein. 
 For it is the born duty of all Jews to acknowledge these 
 books for the lessons of God, firmly to stand by them, 
 and if need be to die for them with pleasure.’ 
 
 Section 41.—Why Josephus closes the Canon of the 
 Old Testament with Artaxerues Longimanus. 
 
 According to this passage Josephus reckons all those 
 writings under the head canonical which were written 
 from the time of Moses down to the reign of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus. With the reign (ἀρχὴ) of Artaxerxes the 
 collection was closed—a very general determination, and 
 according to which books composed during the reign of 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 89 
 
 Artaxerxes would belong to the canon. It is worth while 
 to inquire for what reason Josephus employed so general 
 aterm. Had he been aware of a particular year in which 
 the canon was closed in a solemn manner, or acquainted 
 with a person who had effected its settlement, he would 
 certainly have given that preciser date. Most probably he 
 was uninformed in both respects. Now he was equally 
 compelled and disposed to state the time after which no 
 works entitled to credit in so high a degree were written ; 
 wherefore, nothing remained but to place the collection 
 before him, find out the latest book which belonged to it, 
 and declare the date to which it belonged. Now the book 
 of Esther, either really, or at least in the opinion of 
 Josephus, was this latest book ; it either belonged really, 
 or at least in his opinion, to the reign of Artaxerxes Longi- 
 manus,’ and therefore he closed the canon with his reign.? 
 
 * On this subject we have Josephus’s own acknowledgment, Antig. 
 xi. c. 6,§ 1 ff: Ἔγραψε δε Μαρδοχαιος τοις ἐν rn ’Aptateptov βασιλεὼς 
 (wow Ἰουδαιοις ταυτας παραφυλασσειν Tas ἥμερας και éopryny ἄγειν abras, 
 and so on. 
 
 * The Zurich Library (Part i. § 181) objects: ‘The book of Esther 
 must be reckoned by Josephus to the canon like all other books written 
 in the reign of Artaxerxes, and the canon closed with it as if it could 
 not have concluded with Nehemiah, whose history goes necessarily 
 down to the beginning of his reign, or with Malachi, whose era is not 
 known. Both may have written under the Artaxerxes of Josephus. 
 The book of Esther was probably written after Artaxerxes, in whose 
 reign the events are said to have occurred. Everything, indeed (as is 
 mentioned in the 10th chapter), which happened after the elevation of 
 Mardochzus was recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Persia as 
 long as Mardochzeus remained at the helm. At least that is so declared, 
 And if regard be also had to the Greek subscription in the supplement, 
 the book was first made known by an uncertain hand, in a translation 
 at the time of the Ptolemies in Egypt.’ So far the long objection, to 
 whose validity nothing else is wanting than the possibility of our opinion 
 as to the time to which the book of Esther, or the story recorded in it, 
 belongs, or that of the author of the Greek subscription on this point, 
 exercising any influence in determining the proposed question. The 
 
90 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 But why does he not say rather, Esther was the latest 
 book? Because, perhaps, this mode of fixing the time when 
 the canon was closed might not have been generally in- 
 telligible, and the question would again necessarily arise, 
 to what period the book of Esther itself falls ; perhaps to 
 avoid the objection that Esther did not, in fact, stand at 
 the end of the collection. Esther, indeed, might be the 
 last written book, and yet not occupy the last place in the 
 canon, because, according to the plan of its compilers, the 
 complemental register to the entire biblical history, the 
 book of Chronicles, would form its necessary conclusion, 
 and did, in fact, according to the declaration of the New 
 Testament, at that time as well as in our editions, close it, 
 as has been (sec. 7) shown above. 
 
 How many difficulties are removed by these remarks 
 founded on the writings of Josephus, and how many ques- 
 tions answered, may be felt by their application to modern 
 disputes respecting the canon. 
 
 According to Eusebius, and most manuscripts of 
 Josephus, the canon was not closed till the death of 
 Artaxerxes, a determination which varies but little from 
 the preceding one, at least in sense. 
 
 Section 42.—Why does Josephus adopt Twenty-two 
 Canonical Books ὃ 
 
 The Hebrews, according to Josephus, possessed twenty- 
 two holy books. So he counts, together with his nation, 
 according to the calculation of the Hebrew alphabet. For 
 
 whole matter depends on the relation of Josephus; he must be his 
 own interpreter ; and according to his express declaration the book of 
 Esther belongs to the time of Artaxerxes. He could not close the 
 canon of the O. T. with Nehemiah because he places him and his book 
 of history in the time of Xerxes. Malachi could not have been made 
 the latest book (had it even been really such) by Josephus, because he 
 was not aware in what Persian reign his discourses were by him 
 published. 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 91 
 
 that he referred in this matter to the number of consonants 
 in the Hebrew alphabet, both Origen and other Church 
 Fathers expressly declare (sec. 58, 55) ; also it is agreeable 
 to analogy, as has been shown above (sec. 6). Wherefore, 
 exactly reckoned, the number of Jewish books was not 
 limited to only twenty-two; it was only possible by a cer- 
 tain arrangement to reduce the existing writings within 
 that number. 
 
 Section 43.—1. General Calculation. 
 
 Five books belonged to Moses, thirteen were the work 
 of Prophets between Moses and Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
 also besides these four others were extant containing 
 matter of a moral nature. 
 
 If we may venture to follow a later author, Origen, 
 who, like Josephus, fixes the number of books of the 
 Old Testament at twenty-two, and counts them one after 
 the other, the thirteen books of the second class would 
 admit of the following arrangement :— 
 
 1. Joshua. 8. Isaiah. 
 2. Judges and Ruth. 9. Prophecies of Jeremiah 
 3. 2 Books of Samuel. and Lamentations. _ 
 4. 2 Books of Kings. 10. Ezekiel. 
 5. 2 Books of Chronicles. 11. Daniel. 
 6. lst and 2nd books of Ezra, | 12. 12 lesser Prophets. 
 Ezra and Nehemiah. 13. Job. 
 7. Esther. 
 The four books of moral contents would be— 
 1. Psalms. 3. Ecclesiastes. 
 2. Proverbs. 4, Song of Songs. 
 
 But was the source from whence Origen drew pure? Did 
 not the great revolutions, which struck the Hebrew nation 
 between the time of Josephus and Origen, exert also a 
 
92 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 prejudicial influence on their collection of canonical books ? 
 During this interval, whether from ignorance, accident, or 
 fraud, were not writings advanced into the canonical col- 
 lection which had never been there before? Thus may 
 one question; and though much may be said at once in 
 reply, it is still more advisable, and worthy of the inquirer 
 after truth, to avoid this method, lest the imputation, with 
 even the smallest look of probability, should be made of a 
 disposition on his part to steal an advantage, or to build 
 all upon hypothesis. Josephus is entitled to be his 
 own commentator; we will request his judgment upon 
 separate books of the Old Testament, and found a new 
 calculation on his answers, below. 
 
 SEcTION 44.—Particular Reckoning. 
 
 PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 In the first place, some remarks which may, perhaps, 
 shed light upon the passages which I shall extract from 
 Josephus, and which may lead our judgment respecting 
 them. 
 
 1. All writings referred by Josephus to Prophets 
 belonged to his canon, for he rests the exalted credit and 
 certainty of his national writings on the fact that they 
 were the work of Prophets (sec. 39, 46). 
 
 2. Indisputably he declares to be canonical all the 
 writings which he describes as tepas βιβλους, τας των 
 ἱερων ypabwv βιβλους, ἱερα γραμματα, Ta ἐν τῳ ἱερῳ 
 ἀνακείμενα γράμματα, and βιβλους προφητειας. This 
 is shown by the selection of the terms, and the passages 
 which will be quoted below leave not a shadow of doubt 
 on the point. 
 
 3. With the above-quoted expressions, the following 
 are of like signification, as: ἀρχαία βιβλια, βιβλοι 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 93 
 
 "Eßpawwv, βιβλοι Ἕ βραΐκαι. This is undeniably certain 
 from numerous passages. Daniel, in his estimation, was a 
 very important Prophet, the exact fulfilment of whose 
 prophecies he applauds in very strong language (sec. 46). 
 And he includes his book merely amongst the βιβλους 
 ‘EBpaiwv and ἀρχαια βιβλια from whence he drew the 
 materials of his history. After having drawn much in- 
 formation from Daniel, he adds!: ‘ Let no one lay to me asa 
 charge that I have transferred everything into my writings 
 just as I found it in the ancient books (ἐν tows ἀρχαίοις 
 BıßAuoıs). For at the very commencement of my history 
 I sheltered myself against the apprehension of omissions or 
 a disposition to blame, by the announcement that it was my 
 intention merely to translate the Hebrew Books (E@parwy 
 βιβλου9) into Greek, without any additions or subtrac- 
 tions of my own.’ In another place he excerpts the adven- 
 ture which happened to Jonas, in the manner recorded by 
 Jonas himself in the Prophets, mixed up, however, with 
 his own, partly false, explanations ; but he remarks on the 
 occasion ? ‘that his story of the Prophet is what he finds 
 related concerning him in the Hebrew Books (‘Eßpaikaıs 
 B.Bro.s)’—an evident proof that by βιβλοις ‘EBpaixacs 
 he understands the canonical writings of his brothers in 
 the faith. 
 
 4, All the writings which he in the history of his 
 nation down to Artaxerxes excerpts, must have belonged 
 to the canon of Josephus. For, firstly, Josephus even 
 rests the credibility of Jewish history from Moses to 
 Artaxerxes upon the circumstance that it was written 
 entirely and alone by Prophets, and declares that the Jews 
 possessed no other historical books than such as were 
 the composition of Prophets. Wherefore in the history 
 
 ' Antiquit. x. c. 10, § 6, p. 536. 252. Antig. lib. ix. c. 10, § 2, p. 497. 
 3 Contra Ap. lib. 1. § 8. Above, § 26. 
 
94 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 of the Hebrews to Artaxerxes Longimanus, it is im- 
 possible that he can take any other authority than 
 these. And, secondly, it is also evident from inspection. 
 We find those historical books which he places, by simple 
 enumeration, in his canon, as—the five books of Moses, the 
 book of Joshua, the books of Kings (sec. 46), transferred 
 entire as to their contents into his Archeology. Of just 
 the same value will have been also the other sources of 
 his national history to Artaxerxes. In the meantime, 
 however, it is not to be denied that even in the older 
 part of Hebrew history he mentions facts of which in the 
 historical books of the Old Testament not a trace is to 
 be found. Probably he drew these additions out of 
 national traditions, which in his time were abundantly 
 eurrent from mouth to mouth, but which had not then 
 been reduced to writing. In like manner Paul, for in- 
 stance, refers to a mere tradition when he makes Jannes 
 and Jambres strive for superiority in wonder-working 
 before Pharaoh (2 Tim. iii. 8), a tradition also which 
 ‘ Pseudo-Jonathan has introduced into his Targum, 2 Book 
 Moses i. 15, vii. 2. 
 
 5. All Hebrew books of all kinds extant in Josephus’s 
 time but coming from times before the death of Artaxerxes 
 are with him without exception canonical. For he closes 
 his evidence respecting the canon of his nation with the 
 remark that all books whose authors lived after 
 Artaxerxes Longimanus were of far inferior estimation. 
 Nowif he had not assigned to all books written before the 
 aforesaid time equal value and equal weight, he would not 
 have thrown all into one class, nor deduced all from 
 Prophets; but with the very same foresight would have 
 cut off from the rest all those which were of inferior repute. 
 If, then, it can be shown of a book, first, that Josephus 
 was acquainted with it, and, secondly, that it was not 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 95 
 
 written after the time of Artaxerxes, it belongs to 
 Josephus’s canon. 
 
 6. Finally, all books composed after Artaxerxes must 
 in the sense of Josephus be deemed apocryphal, even if 
 their contents went back into the reign of that prince.! 
 
 SEcTION 45.—Distribution of the Judgments of Josephus 
 respecting Single Books of the Old Testament. 
 
 After these remarks the judgments passed by Josephus 
 on single books of the Old Testament may with propriety 
 follow.2 But Iarrange them, to facilitate the review, into 
 three classes :— 
 
 1. Books which he expressly enumerates amongst the 
 holy books of his nation. 
 
 2. Books of which, without this express evidence, he 
 merely makes use as an author. 
 
 3. Books which he passes over altogether with silence. 
 
 First CLass.—Books EXPRESSLY PLACED BY JOSEPHUS 
 AMONGST THE HoLY Books oF HIS NATION. 
 
 Section 46.—Five Books of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Nahum, Haggai, Zechariah, 
 Joshua, Books of Kings, Psalms. 
 
 The Five Books of Moses are expressly named by 
 Josephus in the passage above given; and everywhere, 
 
 ! The doubts adduced by Spittlerin his programme, De Usu Versionis 
 Alexandrine apud Josephum, $ 18-22, respecting the validity of the 
 testimony of Josephus about the canon, are, in my opinion, removed, as 
 soon as a view has been taken of all the passages in which Josephus 
 either directly or impliedly passes sentence on the books of the O. T. 
 Towards which object the following paragraphs, it is hoped, will assist. 
 
 2 To this purpose a handsome contribution has been already made 
 by Ch. Fred. Smith in two programmes, entitled, Znarratio Sententie 
 Flav. Josephi de libris V. T. (Wittenb. 1777). 
 
96 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 when his thoughts are directed towards them, he speaks 
 of them with high esteem and much reverence. He calls 
 them ἱερας PBußAovs! and Tas των ἱερων γραφων 
 βιβλους-.3 
 
 Isaiah.—His prophecies are termed by him, on the 
 occasion of imparting the information that ae oracle 
 respecting himself had been read by Cyrus: βιβλιον, ὁ 
 Tns αὐτου προφητείας Ἡσαΐας κατέλιπε πρὸ ἐτων 
 διακοσίων καὶ Oexa.* In other places he is simply called 
 mpo&nrtns,‘ and in the biography of Hezekiah, προφητης, 
 map ov (Efexias) παντ᾽ ἀκριβως τα peddovTa ἐπυν- 
 θανετο.ὅ 
 
 Jeremiah is with him προφητης os Ta μέλλοντα τῇ 
 πολει δεινα Tpoexnpves,® by which expression the contents 
 of his prophecies are accurately distinguished. 
 
 Ezekiel is cited by the title προφητης, and his pro- 
 phecies are brought into comparison with those of 
 Jeremiah.’ 
 
 Our Daniel Josephus places amongst the tepa ypap- 
 ματα: ὃ he terms his prophecies προφητείαν προ τετρα- 
 
 1 Antiq. lib. i. p. 5, at the end of the preface; lib. iii. ὁ. 5, 8 2, 
 p. 128; lib. iv. c. 8, § 48, p. 255; lib. iv. Ὁ. 2, § 2, p. 475; lib. x. c. 4, 
 § 2, p. 517, ed. Haverc., which I always cite. 
 
 2 Contra Ap. lib. ii. $ 4, p. 472. Many other passages show the 
 reverence with which Josephus and his brothers in the faith speak 
 of the Mosaical writings. Antigq. lib. 1. c. 4, xx. c. 5, p. 966, iii. c. 6, p. 
 m. 135, iv. c. 8, p. m. 251, x. 6: 4, p. m. 251, x. c. 4, p. m. 517, xvi. c. 6, 
 
 p. m. 800. 
 
 3 Antig. xi. c. 1, ὃ 2, p. 547. 
 
 4 Antigq. x. c. 2, § 2, p. 514. 
 
 5 Antig. xi. c. 13, § 3, p. 506. 
 
 6 Antig. x. c. 5, ὃ 1, p. 520. See the following note. 
 
 7The same, Otros ὃ mpopntns (lepeuias) και Ta μελλοντὰα TH πόλει 
 δεινα mpoeknpuke, ἐν Ὑραμμασι καταλιπων, Kat THY vuv ἐφ᾽ ἥμων γενομενὴν 
 ἅλωσιν τὴν τε Βαβυλωνιαν αἵρεσιν. Οὐ μονον δε οὗτος aes oe ταυτα 
 τοις ὄχλοις, ἀλλα καὶ ὃ προφητη5 Ἰεζεκιηλος. 
 
 8. Antig. lib. x. c. 10,$ 4, p. 535. After having made some quotation 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS il, 
 
 κοσιων καὶ OKTW γενομενην &rwv,! and expresses himself in 
 another place very strongly as to their truth.? 
 
 The twelve lesser prophets are regarded by Josephus 
 as one book; he calls them δωδεκα tov ἀριθμον, and 
 places them, on account of the exact fulfilment of their 
 prophecies, by the side of the Prophet Isaiah.2 Some of 
 them he quotes also in an especial manner. | 
 
 Jonah is declared by him to be a true prophet; 
 whereupon he describes the singular accidents of his life 
 in such wise that it is evident he draws his materials 
 from tbe account prepared by Jonah himself, with a mix- 
 ture, however, of his own partly false comments, although 
 his mode of reference be merely general, and to the 
 βιβλους "Eßpaikas.* 
 
 Nahum also is named by him podnrns, and is ex- 
 tolled for the accurate accomplishment of his predic- 
 tions.? 
 
 Haggai and Zechariah are termed δυο mpodnraı.® 
 
 from Daniel, he concludes with the following words: ‘ Whoever will 
 examine into this, σπουδασατω To βιβλιον avaryywvat του Δανιηλου " εὑρησει 
 δε TovTo ἐν τοις ἱεροις γραμμασι. Compare above, § 44, p. 95, note 1. 
 
 U Antın. 110. xii. ce. 7,,S 6..p, 6117. 
 
 * Antig. lib. x. c. 11, § 7, p. 544. Tavra mavra ἐκεινος, Θεου δειξαντος 
 αὐτῳ, συγγραψας κατελειψεν, ὥστε TOUS ἀναγινωσκοντας και Ta συμβαινοντα 
 σκοπουντας θαυμαζειν ἐπι tn παρα του Θεου τιμῃ Tov Δανίηλον. More- 
 over Josephus excerpts the eight first chapters of Daniel. Antig. lib. x. 
 c. 10 and 11. 
 
 ® Antig. x. c. 2, ὃ 2, p. 515. Kat οὐχ οὗτος povos 6 προφητης 
 (‘Ecaas), ἄλλα και ἄλλοι δωδεκα Tov Apıduov To αὖτο ἐποιησαν. Kat παν, 
 εἶτε ἄγαθον εἶτε φαυλον, γίνεται παρ᾽ ἧμιν, κατα τὴν ἐκεινων ἀποβαινει 
 προφητειαν. 
 
 * Antig.ix.c. 10,$ 1,2, pp. 497, 498. Τουτῳ (it runs ὃ 1) προεφητευσε 
 τις Ἴωνας... He refers in the biography of Jonah to the βιβλους 
 ‘Efpaixas (see above, $ 44) and closes the 2nd section with the words 
 διεξηλθον δὲ τὴν περι αὐτου Sinynow, ws εὗρον avaryeypaumerny. 
 
 5 Antiq. lib, ix. c. 11, § 3, pp. 501, 502. 
 
 ° Antig. lib. xi. c. 4, § 5, p. 557. 
 
98 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 The book of Joshuais mentioned by Josephus as one of 
 the books kept in the Temple.! 
 
 The Books of Kings.—The book in which the history 
 of the prophet Elias is recorded—that is, the books of 
 Kings—he places by the side of that which tells us of 
 Enoch—that is, by the first book of Moses; both he 
 terms iepas βιβλου-.3 
 
 Psalms.—They are in the above passage expressly 
 distinguished by the title ὕμνοι εἰς τον Θεον, and Josephus 
 mentions them also elsewhere by the name Songs of 
 David, because David was their chief author. 
 
 SECOND CLAss.—BooKs QUOTED BY JOSEPHUS WITHOUT 
 ADDITIONS, OR THOSE OF WHICH HE AvAILS HIMSELF 
 MERELY AS AN AUTHOR. 
 
 Section 47.—Lamentations, Judges, Ruth, Books of 
 Samuel, Chronicles, Hzra, Nehemiah, and Esther. 
 
 The Lamentations of Jeremiah, which in the opinion 
 of Josephus were written on the occasion of the death of 
 King Josiah, are by him quoted as a then extant poem.* 
 Compare sec. 44, n. 9. 
 
 Judges and Ruth.—Both contain the incidents of far 
 remote antiquity, and must have been written long before 
 the time of Artaxerxes. Josephus is not only ac- 
 quainted with them both, but in the fifth book of his 
 
 1 Antig. lib. v. ὁ. 1, § 17, p. 273. Ὅτι de τὸ unkos τῆς ἡμερας 
 ἐπεδωκε TOTE, Kal του συνήθους ἐπλεονασε, δήλουται δια των ἄνακειμενων 
 ἐν τῷ ἱερῳ γραμματων. 
 
 2 Antig. lib. ix. ο. 2, 8 2, p. 475. Περι μεντοι γε Ἤλια και Ἔνωχον 
 Tov γενομενου mpo ns ἐπομβριας ἐν ταις ἱεραις ἀναγεγραπται βιβλοις, ὅτι 
 γεγονασιν ἄφανεις, θανατον δ᾽ αὐτων οὐδεις older. 
 
 3 Antiq. lib. vii. c. 12, § 3. 
 
 4 Antiq. lib. x. c. 5, $ 1, p. 520. Ἱερεμίας δ᾽ ὁ mpopnrns ἐπικηδειον 
 αὐτου συνεταξε μελος θρηνήτικον, 6 Kat μεχρι νυν διαμενει. 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 99 
 
 Archeology makes abundant use of them. Compare 
 sec. 44, n. 5, 6. 
 
 The two Books of Samuel were extant in their present 
 form long before Artaxerxes ; we find them also word for 
 word transferred from the fifth to the seventh book of his 
 ‘ Antiquities.’! Compare sec. 44, n. 5, 6. 
 
 The two Books of Chronicles are used by Josephus in 
 his ‘ Antiquities’ from the seventh to the tenth book, only 
 the second more abundantly than the first, because the 
 former supplies more aids to Hebrew history than the 
 latter.? 
 
 Ezra and Nehemiah.—According to Josephus, the 
 events contained in these books belong to the times of 
 King Xerxes ;% and since the canon was not closed till 
 the time of his successor, Artaxerxes, they may be both 
 safely placed in his canon. He makes also abundant use 
 of both.* 
 
 Finally, Esther was certainly a part of his canon. For 
 he places the contents of the book in the reign of Xerxes 
 Longimanus, and closes the canon with his reign, because 
 this book was the most recent found by him in the col- 
 lection of the national sacred writings (sec. 41). He makes 
 extracts also from the contents of this book.? These are the 
 writings of the second class. And if one of them is to be 
 
 1 So is also the lamentation on the death of Saul and Jonathan, 
 2 Samuel i., Antig. vili. c. 1, § 1. 
 
 2 Antiq. lib. vili. c. 12, § 4, p. 453, compare 2 Chronicles xiv. 8. 
 Antig. lib. viii. c. 15, § 1, 2, p. 466, compare 2 Chronicles xvii. 7, &c. 
 
 3 Antiq. lib. xi. c. 5, § 8, p. 566. Josephus is speaking of Jeremiah, 
 and concludes with the words: Tavra μὲν οὖν ἐπι Zepkou βασιλεως 
 eyevero. Lib. xi. c. 5, ὃ 1, 2, p. 560, Ἔσδρας... γινεται pidos τῳ 
 βασιλει Ἐερξῃ, and immediately after follows a letter of Xerxes to 
 Ezra. 
 
 ‘ Particularly Antig. lib. xi. But he mixes with it also matter from 
 the third book of Ezra. See Antig, lib. xi. c. 3. 
 
 5 Antiq. lib. xi. c. 6. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 struck out of Josephus’s canon, since the same grounds 
 exist for all, all the rest must lose their places, and how, 
 then, are the thirteen prophetical books to be made up? 
 
 THIRD CLASS.—BOOKS WHICH JOSEPHUS PASSES OVER IN 
 SILENCE. 
 
 Section 48.—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 
 Joh. 
 
 Of Solomon as an author Josephus speaks, but only in 
 general terms;! by name he quotes neither Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, nor the Song of Solomon. 
 
 Just as little mention does he make of the book of 
 Job or its hero. 
 
 Section 49.— Some Remarks. 
 
 According to these observations, then, Joshua, Judges, 
 Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, 
 and the two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, including both the Prophecies and 
 Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve lesser 
 Prophets belonged certainly to the canon of Josephus ; 
 and all these books must be placed in the second class, 
 forming the thirteen prophetical. For they consist partly 
 of prophecies, partly history, and the latter as well as the 
 former mean with Josephus and other writers both before 
 and after his time works of prophets,? partly because the 
 events of their times have been really recorded by some 
 prophets, partly because 8'2) signifies often a writer in 
 general. Now let the reckoning be made as it may, the 
 only doubtful point still remaining is whether Josephus 
 
 1 Antig. lib. viii. c. 2, § 5, p. 419. 
 
 2 Philo, above, ὃ 28. Theodoretus in Pre‘at. ad Libros Regum. 
 Euseb. Preparatio Evang. Abarbanel, Pref. in Josuam. 
 
OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 101 
 
 includes Job in the class of prophetical books, supposing 
 Job to have formed a part of his canon. 
 
 Now no one has hitherto entertained a doubt that Job 
 at the time of Christ and the Apostles held a place in the 
 collection of holy books of the Jews; Philo and the New 
 Testament are acquainted with the book; it was extant 
 doubtless long, long before the fixing of the canon; and 
 though Josephus mentions neither the work nor its hero, 
 it by no means follows that the work itself was not found 
 by him amongst the collection of national books. Was he 
 under a necessity of speaking of it, since, according to the 
 usual opinion of antiquity, he regarded probably the hero 
 of the story as a foreigner, an Arab, and was it not in his 
 competence to write a complete book of Hebrew history 
 without suffering even a syllable upon the subject to fall 
 from him? And if it was known to Josephus and by him 
 found amongst the sacred books of his nation, it was in 
 all probability placed by him in the second class, amongst 
 the thirteen prophetical books. For he arranged all the 
 historical books in the second class; and to that number 
 belonged Job, because its contents were regarded by all 
 antiquity as true history clothed in a poetical form. 
 
 SECTION 50.—Result of the Preceding Inquiry. 
 
 Without any danger of mistake, we may then arrange 
 the thirteen prophetical books of the second class, with 
 Origen, in the following manner :— 
 
 l. Joshua. 8. Isaiah. 
 
 2. Judges and Ruth. 9. Jeremiah, rt and 
 3. 2 Books of Samuel. Lamentations. 
 
 4. 2 Books of Kings. 10. Ezekiel. 
 
 5. 2 Books of Chronicles. 11. Daniel. 
 
 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 12. 12 Lesser Prophets. 
 
 7. Esther. 13. Job. 
 
102 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 The four books of the last class, whose contents are 
 ethical, there can be no mistake about, although Josephus 
 mentions only Psalms, for there are but four remaining 
 books to arrange. 
 
 1. Psalms. 3. Ecclesiastes. 
 2. Proverbs. 4, Song of Solomon. 
 
 SECTION 51.—3. Melito (flor. Sec. 11.). 
 
 The next author to Josephus who affords us informa- 
 tion respecting the canon of the Palestinian Jews is 
 Melito, Bishop of Sardes in the second century after the 
 birth of Christ. He travelled into the Hast for the purpose 
 of obtaining information, from the Jews there resident, of the 
 contents and number of their sacred books, and acquainted 
 his brother Onesimus with the result of his inquiries in a 
 letter which Eusebius has preserved in his History of the 
 Church (Euseb. iv. 26) :— 
 
 Μελίτων 'Ovnoıuo τῳ ἀδελφῳ χαιρειν " ἐπειδη πολλα- 
 Kis ἠξιωσας σπουδὴ TH προς τον Aoyov χρώμενος γενεσθαι 
 σοι ἐκλογας ἐκ TE TOV νομου καὶ των προφητων περι του 
 TWTNPOS και TATNS TNS πίστεως ἡμων, ἔτι δε και μαθειν την 
 των παλαίων βιβλιων EBovAmdes ἀκριβειαν, Toca τον 
 ἀριθμον, και ὅποια τὴν ταξιν Elev, ἐσπουδασα TO τοίουτο 
 πραξαι, ἐπισταμενος σου TO σπουδαιον περι τὴν πίστιν, 
 και φιλομαθες περι τον λογον, OTL τε μαλιστα παντων 
 ποθῳ τῷ προς Θεον Tavra mpoKpivels περι THS αἰωνίου 
 σωτηριας ἀγωνιζομενος" ἀνέλθων οὖν εἰς την ἀνατολὴν, 
 Kal ἕως του τόπου γενομενος ἐνθα ἐκηρυχθη και ἔπραχθη, 
 Kat ἀκριβως μαθων ta της παλαιας διαθηκης βιβλια, 
 ὑποταξας ἐπεμψα σοι" ὧν ἐστι Ta ὀνοματα. Mwücsws 
 πέντε" γενεσις. ἐξοδος, λευιτικον, ἀριθμοι, δευτερονομιον" 
 Ἴησους vaun, κριται; povd, βασιλείων τεσσαρα, παραλι- 
 πομεένων δυο, ψαλμων δαβιδ, σαλομωνος παροιμίαι. ἡ Kal 
 
OPINIONS OF BISHOP MELITO 103 
 
 copia, ἐκκλησιαστικης, ἄσμα ἄσματων, ἰωβ, προφητων,. 
 noaiov, ἱερεμίου: των δωδεκα ἐν μονοβιβλῳ' δανιηλ, 
 ἱεζεκιηλ, ἐσδρας" ἐξ ὧν Kat Tas ἐκλογας ἐποιησαμην, εἰς 
 ἐξ βιβλια διελων. 
 
 ‘Melito wishes all health to his brother Onesimus. 
 Since, out of great affection for the word, thou hast often 
 desired to have extracts from the Law and the Prophets, 
 which regard the Redeemer and our entire faith ; and also 
 to obtain exact information both as to the number and 
 arrangement of the ancient books; I have exerted myself 
 to satisfy you in this respect, knowing your zeal in the 
 faith and earnest desire of knowledge of the word; and 
 that in your strife after immortal happiness through desire 
 towards God, you did prefer the same to all other con- 
 siderations. Wherefore, having come into the East and 
 being where this was both preached and practised, ana 
 having made myself intimately acquainted with the books 
 of the Old Testament, I send you the list of them annexed. 
 The names are as follows:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
 Numbers, and Deuteronomy, being the five books of Moses. 
 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of 
 Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, 
 also called Wisdom,! Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, 
 Job, the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in one 
 book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, and Esdras. Out of these I have 
 made my extracts and divided them into six books.’ 
 
 ! According to Strotti’s version of this passage: but here it is aban- 
 doned because probably neither 7 καὶ σοφια, nor 7 σοφια is the true 
 reading, but according to Strotti’s conjecture, 7 καὶ σοφια. Melito, 
 and after him Eusebius, wrote, indeed, without either accents or aspi- 
 rates, n ka: copia. For the reading in Nicephorus was already kar, 
 and Rufinus translates, ‘que et sapientia.’ Afterwards, when accents 
 were used, out of 7 the postpositive 7 ka: copia was made. Now ἢ 
 could no longer be referred to BiBAra which goes before ; ka: was also 
 left out, and 7 σοφια written, as some editions still read, though the 
 matter might have been made easier with ἢ καὶ codua. 
 
104 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 92.— Blucidation of this Passage. 
 
 In this list, however, Nehemiah and Esther are want- 
 ing; but if the passage be read with discrimination, both 
 will be found there. Melito here arranges the books of the 
 Old Testament evidently according to the time in which 
 they were written, or in which their contents occurred. 
 Hence he places Ruth after the Book of Judges, Daniel 
 and Ezekiel towards the end of his list, and Ezra quite 
 last, because he wrote after the Babylonian captivity. And 
 in like manner as he above throws the Books of Samuel 
 and Kings together under the general name of Books of 
 the Kings, because they contain the history of the Hebrew 
 kingdom, from Saul to Zedechiah, or to the Babylonian 
 captivity, so he appears under the name of Ezra to com- 
 prehend all historical books whose contents fall in the times 
 after the captivity of Babylon. As it is, moreover, quite 
 usual to embrace Ezra and Nehemiah in one book, why 
 may not Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther have been also 
 regarded as forming one entire work? If to this presump- 
 tion be added that, according to Josephus (sec. 47), Nehe- 
 miah and Esther must be held to form a part of the canon, 
 and that other important Fathers of the Church, as Origen 
 (sec. 53) and Jerome (sec. 55), include them both ex- 
 pressly, the reception of the two above-named books into 
 the canon of the Old Testament by Melito will be doubted 
 by no impartial inquirer.! 
 
 ! Schmid, Hist. et Vindic. Canonis, c. i., admits, amongst other points, 
 that Esther may have been omitted by the fault of a transcriber, and 
 therefore originally included in Melito’s list. I doubt it, however, since 
 no traces of the matter are to be found, and Athanasius, Gregory 
 Nazianz., and others who follow Melito, likewise omit Esther. See 
 
 Schmid, c. i. pp. 171, 173, 193. Bruns, in his edition of Kennicotti Diss. 
 Gener. p« 178, is also of my opinion. 
 
OPINIONS OF ORIGEN 105 
 
 Section 53.—4. Origen (nat. A.D. 185; mort. A.D. 253). 
 
 The next Church Father to whom we must listen is 
 Origen, whose list of the canonical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment has been preserved by Eusebius (‘Church His- 
 tory, vi. 25). Itis of extraordinary importance, because 
 borrowed from the Jews, as Origen himself expressly 
 declares at the commencement. 
 
 Tov μὲν tovye πρωτον ἐξηγουμενος ψαλμον, ἐκθεσιν 
 πεποίηται του των ἱερων γράφων της παλαίας διαθηκης 
 καταλογου, ὧδε πως γραφων καταλεξιν " οὐκ ἀγνοητεον δ᾽ 
 εἰναι τας ἐνδιαθηκους βιβλους, os “Ἕβραιοι παραδιδοασιν, 
 δυο και εἰκοσι" 0005 ὁ ἀριθμος των Tap’ αὐτοις στοιχείων 
 ἐστιν" εἶτα μετα τινα, ἔπιφερει λεγων " εἰσι δε αἱ εἰκοσι δυο 
 βιβλιοι καθ᾽ “EBpacovs aide. ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμιν γενεσις ἔπι- 
 γεγραμμενη, παρα δε ᾿Εβραιοις ἀπο της apxns της βιβλου 
 βρησιθ, ὁπερ ἐστιν ἐν ἀρχη " ἐξοδος, οὐαλεσμωθ, ὁπερ ἐστι 
 TAUTA TA GVOMATA* λευιτίκον, οὐΐκρα και ἐκαλεσεν" ἀρι- 
 θμοι, ἀμμεσφεκωδειμ" Ösvrspovoniov, ἕλλε ἁδδεβαριμ, 
 οὗτοι οἱ λογοι" “Incovs vios Navn, Ἴωσοε Bev Novy’ 
 Kpttat, povd, παρ᾽ avroıs Ev ἕνι, σωφετιμ. βασιλείων 
 πρωτη δευτερα. map’ αὐτοις ἑν Σαμουὴλ, ὁ θεοκλητοΞ. 
 βασιλείων τριτη τεταρτὴ ἐν Evi, οὐαμμελεχ δαβιδ, ὁπερ 
 ἐστι βασιλεια δωαβιδ- LlapaAsırousvwv πρωτ 7 δευτερα ἐν 
 ἑνι διβρηαΐαμιμ, ὁπερ ἐστι Aoyoı ἡμερων " ἐσδρας πρωτος 
 και δευτερος ἐν Evı, ἐζρα, ὁ ἐστι βοηθος - βιβλος ψαλμων, 
 σεφερ θιλλιμ. Σαλομωνος παροιμίαι, μισλωθ, ἐκκλη- 
 σιαστικης; KWENEO* ἄσμα ἄσματων, σιρ ἁσσιριμ' ἡσαῖας, 
 ἼἸεσαῖα. ᾿Ιερεμιας συν Opnvois καὶ τη ἐπιστολῃ ἐν ἕνι, 
 Ἴερεμια, Δανιηλ, Δανιηλ, ‘TeSexunnr, Ιεζεκιηλ, Ἴωβ, Ἴωβ. 
 Eo@np, Ἔσθηρ. ἐξω δὲ τουτων ἐστι τα Μακκαβαΐκα, 
 ἅπερ Emiyeyparraı Σαρβηθ σαρβανε ei. 
 
 In the course of explaining the first Psalm he (Origen) 
 gives a catalogue of the sacred books of the Old Testament 
 
106 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 on which occasion he expresses himself as follows: ‘ It is 
 to be noted that the canonical Scriptures, after the reckon- 
 ing of the Jews, consist, like the number of their letters, of 
 twenty-two books.’ A little further on he proceeds: 
 ‘These twenty-two books are, according to the Hebrews, 
 as follows :—The book by us called Genesis, but by the 
 Hebrews, after the beginning of the book, Breshith, which 
 signifies “ In the beginning.” Exodus, Velleshemoth, that 
 is, “ These are the names.” Leviticus, “ Vikra,” “ And he 
 called out.” Numbers, ‘‘ Hammishpekodim.” Deuteronomy, 
 Ellehaddebarim, ‘‘ These be the words.” Jesus the son of 
 Nave, Jehosua Ben Nun, Judges, Ruth, with them in 
 one book, Shopetim.! The First and Second of Kings, in 
 one, Samuel, “ The called of God.” The Third and Fourth 
 of Kings, in one, Vammelek David, that is, “ And the 
 King David.” The First and Second of Chronicles, in one, 
 “ Dibbre hayamim,” that is, “ Day-books.” The First and 
 Second Esdras in one, Ezra,? that is, “ The helper.” The 
 Book of Psalms, “Sepher Thillim.” The Proverbs of 
 Solomon, ‘‘ Mishloth.” Ecclesiastes, ‘‘ Koheleth.” The 
 Song of Songs, “Shir Hashirim.” ' Isaiah, “ Yesaiah.” 
 Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and Epistles, in one 
 Book, “ Yirmeyah.” Daniel, “ Daniel.” Ezekiel, “‘ Yeze- 
 kiel.” Job, “ Yob.” Esther, “Esther.” Besides these, 
 
 1 Trace thereof is to be found in the Masora finalis of a Spanish 
 MS. (with Kennicott No. 3), where Ruth, from the beginning of the 
 book, is called Yaw Yaw DD. See Bruns, ad Kennicotti Dissertat. 
 General. pp. 18, 19, note. 
 
 2 Proofs to this purpose are to be found in the modern Hebrew MSS. 
 Many still have the two books of Samuel, the two of Kings, the two of 
 Chronicles, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah, written altogether, without 
 intervening space. Hence all these books in the oldest editions, which 
 followed with the closest accuracy the MSS., are printed together, till 
 Daniel Bombey introduced the separation thereaf, now become usual. 
 See § 359. 
 
OPINIONS OF ORIGEN 107 
 
 there are also the Books of Maccabees, which are entitled 
 «( Sarbeth, sarbane El.” ”! 
 
 SECTION 54.—Elucidation of this Passage. 
 
 In this catalogue of the canonical books of the Old 
 Testament the twelve lesser Prophets are wanting. Baruch, 
 on the contrary, has a place there. The first difficulty 
 vanishes as soon asa comparison be made between Rufinus 
 (his Latin translation) and Hilary’s Prologue to the Psalms. 
 The first has, in the quoted passage of Eusebius, the 
 twelve lesser Prophets in the place after the Song of 
 Songs; and the latter, who, according to an observation 
 already made by Jerome, drew the materials of his Pro- 
 logue to the Psalms for the most part out of the said 
 passage, mentions the twelve lesser Prophets amongst the 
 canonical writings of the Old Testament.” The other 
 difficulty is not so easy to remove. Nowhere is there a 
 trace of Jeremiah’s Epistle ever having formed a part of the 
 Jewish canon. Origen was mistaken, and perhaps had 
 before him a MS. of the Seventy, in which, as usual, Baruch 
 was placed immediately after Jeremiah, and was thereby 
 led into his mistake. 
 
 1 According to Strotti’s translation. 
 
 2 Here is the remark of Valesius on this place : ‘ Omissus est in hoc 
 catalogo liber duodecim Prophetarum. Quo factum est, ut cum viginti 
 duos libros se numeraturum promiserit Origenes, unus duntaxit et 
 viginti reperiantur. In Rufini versione, recensetur hic liber statim post 
 Canticum Canticorum. Nec aliter Hilarius in prologo enarrationis in 
 Psalmos, et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Czeterum sacre scripture libri 
 longe alio ordine hic recensentur quam ab Epiphanio et Hieronymo et 
 Melitone, cujus locum supra retulit Eusebius in fine lib. iv. Hilarius 
 vero, in prologo commentariorum in Psalmos, cum Origene prorsus con- 
 sentit. Nec id mirum, cum totus fere prologus ille Hilarii translatus sit 
 ex commentariis in Psalmos, ut testatur Hieronymus.’ 
 
 3 This becomes more probable when the circumstance is mentioned 
 that the Egyptian Christians, those great admirers of apocryphal 
 writings, make Baruch follow the Lamentations. See below, § 310. 
 
108 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 55.—Jerome (A.D. 422). 
 
 Jerome reckons, according to the number of the con- 
 sonants of the Hebrew alphabet, twenty-two books, and 
 places them in his Prologus Galeatus in the following order, 
 which is also followed by the Bibliotheca Divina :— 
 
 1 to 5. Five Books of Moses. 14. Job. 
 
 6. Joshua. 15. Psalms. 
 
 7. Judges and Ruth. 16. Proverbs. 
 
 8. 2 Books of Samuel. 17. Ecclesiastes. 
 
 9. 2 Books of Kings. 18. Song of Solomon. 
 
 10. Isaiah. 19. Daniel. 
 
 11. Jeremiah’s Prophecies | 20. 2 Books of Chronicles. 
 and Lamentations. 21. Ezra in 2 books, 1.6. Ezra 
 
 12. Ezekiel. and Nehemiah. 
 
 13. 12 Lesser Prophets. 22. Esther. 
 
 ‘ Viginti et duas literas’ (he says in his Prologus 
 Galeatus), ‘esse apud Hebrzeos, Syrorum quoque lingua 
 et Chaldzorum testatur, que hebraz magna ex parte 
 confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent, 
 eodem sono et diversis characteribus. . . . Porro quinque 
 literee duplices apud Hebreeos sunt, Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, 
 Sade. Unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices existi- 
 mantur, Samuel, Melachim, Dibre hayamim, Esdras, 
 Jeremias cum Cinoth, id est Lamentationibus suis. Quomodo 
 igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per que scribimus 
 hebraice omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana 
 comprehenditur: ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, 
 quibus quasi literis et exordiis in Dei doctrina, tenera 
 adhuc et lactens viri justi eruditur infantia. Primus apud 
 eos liber vocatur Beresith, quem nos Genesin dicimus. 
 Secundus, Vialle Semoth. Tertius Vajicra, i.e. Leviticus. 
 Quartus Vajedabber, quem Numeros vocamus. Quintus Elle- 
 
OPINIONS OF JEROME ὁ 109 
 
 haddebarim, qui Deuteronomium preenotatur. Hi sunt quin- 
 que libri Mosis : quos proprie Thora, id est Legem, appellant. 
 
 ‘ Secundum Prophetarum ordinem faciunt et incipiunt 
 ab Jesu filio Nabe, qui apud eos Josue ben Nun dicitur. 
 Deinde subtexunt Sophetim, id est Judicum librum; et in 
 eundem compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judicum facta 
 ejus narratur historia. Tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos 
 Regum primum et secundum dicimus. Quartus, Melachim, 
 id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regum volumine con- 
 tinetur. Meliusque multo est Melachim, id est Regum, 
 quam Melachoth, id est Regnorum, dicere: non enim 
 multarum gentium describit regna sed unius Israelitici 
 populi, qui tribubus duodecim continetur. Quintus est 
 Esaias. Sextus, Jeremias. Septimus, Ezechiel. Octavus, 
 liber duodecim Prophetarum qui apud illos vocatur 
 Thereasai. 
 
 ‘Tertius ordo Hagiographa possidet. Et primus liber 
 incipit a Job. Secundus a David, quem quinque inci- 
 sionibus et uno Psalmorum volumine comprehendunt. 
 Tertius est Salomon, tres libros habens, Proverbia, que illi 
 Misle, id est, Parabolas, appellant. Quartus Ecclesiastes, 
 id est, Coheleth. Quintus Canticum Canticorum, quem 
 titulo Sir hassirim preenotant. Sextus est Daniel. Septimus 
 Dibre hajammim, id est, verba dierum, quod significantius 
 Chronicon totius diving historise possumus appellare, qui 
 liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscri- 
 bitur. Octavus Esdras: qui et ipse similiter apud Greecos 
 et Latinos in duos libros divisus est. Nonus Esther. 
 
 ‘Atque ita fiunt pariter Veteris Legis libri viginti duo, 
 id est, Mosis quinque, et Prophetarum octo, Hagiogra- 
 phorum novem. 
 
 ‘Quamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagiographa 
 scriptitent et hos libros in suo putent numero supputandos 
 ac per hoc esse priscze Legis viginti quatuor. Hic prologus 
 
110 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, 
 quos de Hebrzeo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest : 
 ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos esse, inter apocry- 
 pha ponendum est. Igitur Sapientia, que vulgo Salomonis 
 inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith et Tobias et 
 Pastor non suntincanone. Machabeorum primum librum 
 hebraicum reperis, secundus gracus est, quod ex ipsa 
 quoque phrasi probari potest.’ 
 
 He divides, then, the entire collection into three parts, 
 Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, and reckons eight 
 Prophets and nine Hagiographa; and remarks also that 
 some make twenty-four books, and in order to complete 
 this number enumerate specially Ruth and the Lamenta- 
 tions; and concludes with this observation, that all Jewish 
 Scriptures beyond those named are to be placed amongst 
 the Apocrypha. 
 
 SECTION 56.—Talmud (Sec. II.-IV.). 
 
 The Jews from mere whim shifted two Yods into their 
 alphabet, in order to make out (in its favour also) the 
 number of twenty-four consonants. Hence the Talmud 
 reckons twenty-four canonical books, in the following 
 order : ἰ — 
 
 1-5. Five Books of Moses. 15. Psalms. 
 6. Joshua. 16. Job. 
 7. Judges. 17. Proverbs. 
 8. 2 Books of Samuel. 18. Ecclesiastes. 
 9. 2 Books of Kings. 19. Song of Songs. 
 10. Jeremiah. 20. Lamentations. 
 11. Ezekiel. 21. Daniel. 
 12. Isaiah. 22. Esther. 
 13. 12 Lesser Prophets. 23. Ezra (and Nehemiah). 
 14. Ruth. 24. Chronicles. 
 
 ! Buxtorfii Ziberias, cap. xi. 
 
 rn u 
 
FINAL OPINION ITY 
 
 The chief passage is to be found in the treatise ‘ Bava 
 Bathra.’! After dividing the Biblical Scriptures into 
 (1) nn, (2) Ὁ" 2), and (3) 0°31N3, and making many 
 observations on them not here to the purpose, it names the 
 books of each part separately and gives those of the two 
 last parts in the following order :—ypym) pwns Sy MD 
 Sy mp Ὧν pen mye bapmn mm DibDa opie 
 Ss mop omen ay nbap Sw sys. odan ἼΒΟῚ ni Dana 
 
 ‘DoT OT Sy anos ΠΟΣῚ 
 
 SECTION 57.— Result. History declares all the Books of our 
 Edition of the Hebrew Bible to be Canonical. 
 
 From the information hitherto gathered, it appears to 
 me indisputable that, at the time of Christ and the 
 Apostles, the Jewish Canon, as far as extent is concerned, 
 agreed with our present edition of the Bible. And if it 
 be desired to show that, before then, in the space of time 
 between the end of the Babylonian captivity and the birth 
 of Christ, a smaller number of books was ever contained 
 in it, the necessity would then arise of either denying 
 the truth of the picture drawn by antiquity of the mode 
 of thinking among the Jews with regard to their sacred 
 books, or of affirming that never at any time was an inten- 
 tional and in all its parts settled collection of their national 
 writings prepared by the Jews. The first step would 
 signify the contradiction to their faces, without the 
 slightest reasons, of the most credible witnesses of 
 antiquity, and the last a dispute against all evidence. 
 
 The Jews burned ever with holy reverence towards 
 their national Scriptures. ‘ With their birth,’ says 
 Josephus, ‘was also born the belief to hold them for 
 Divine teachings; they ventured not, he assures us, either 
 to add to or take from them, or to change them, although 
 
 ' Bava Bathra, fol. 13, 14, ed. Venet. 1548. 
 
112 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 many thereof had already attained a very high antiquity ’ 
 (sec. 40). Even amidst the greatest sufferings brought 
 upon them by the unreasoning spirit of persecution, on 
 account of their sacred books, their reverence towards 
 them was not diminished.‘ How was it possible that a 
 nation of this mode of thinking should place beside their 
 sacred books such as were of inferior worth and estimation 
 —provided that the point had been made evident and 
 universally decided, how many and what books deserved 
 the estimation of sacred ? 
 
 And this was settled. As far as we can go back in 
 their history, immediately where the Apocrypha connect 
 again the broken thread of Hebrew literature, a sacred 
 national library of the Hebrews is expressly spoken of, as 
 if the separate parts of it were already accurately fixed. 
 It appears then to have been established soon after the 
 Babylonian captivity, or that out of the writings which with 
 regard to contents, authors, and the time of their com- 
 position varied so much, an entire whole was formed with 
 the object of hindering for the future any new writings 
 from being added thereto (sec. 5), although from want of 
 information we are not now able to state in what year and 
 for what reason the increase of the collection was termi- 
 nated. 
 
 In short, it is the voice of history, that after the Baby- 
 lonian captivity, and, indeed, soon after the new foundation 
 of the Hebrew state in Palestine, the canon was firmly fixed 
 and all the books were at that time received into it which 
 we now findinit. And yet have modern scholars attempted 
 to prove that the canon of the Old Testament was not fixed 
 till in very late times ; that many books of the Old Testa- 
 ment now held by us as canonical had no place for- 
 merly in the canon, but were first raised to that dignity by 
 Fathers of the Church and later Jews. 
 
FINAL OPINION 113 
 
 A favourite system was the cause of this. Speculations 
 had been formed in abstracto as to the characteristics of a 
 book of the Bible, and in the absence of all materials a 
 building was constructed in the air. Now the adopted uni- 
 versal idea of the nature of a Bible-book was contradicted 
 by innumerable manifestations. Without pulling down the 
 old house itself and providing materials for a firmer 
 structure, they built a castle in the air and rejected from 
 the canon books which did not comply with their theory 
 though already consecrated by time. 
 
114 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 CHAPTER IL. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE TEXTS OF THE BOOKS OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Section 58.—General Considerations. 
 
 A COMPLETE history of the Hebrew text would enumerate, 
 with reference to causes and consequences, all the essential 
 and accidental changes, whether for good or evil, which it 
 has undergone in the process of thousands of years and in 
 its passage through men’s hands, from the time of its first 
 composition down to the latest periods; meanwhile both 
 honesty and criticism combine to place on an immovable 
 foundation and incontestably to demonstrate that, even 
 amidst the imperfections of our present text, it becomes us 
 nevertheless to reverence the exceeding wisdom of the 
 Divine dispensation. 
 
 The essential variations—that is to say, those which 
 affect the sense—have awakened the spirit of inquiry 
 amongst men and led to discoveries. And the accidental 
 changes are of evident use to us. Had the writings 
 of Moses been always copied in their original character, 
 they might perhaps have been illegible to posterity, 
 according to the fate of so many important monuments 
 of antiquity which have become ultimately quite lost. 
 And had they even been preserved, they might have been 
 for us perhaps but unmeaning hieroglyphics. As long 
 as the Hebrew continued a living language, the sense 
 of their sacred books might have been sufficiently clear by 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 115 
 
 the application of vowel-points to passages only of a 
 double signification. What gratitude do we not owe to an 
 all-directing Providence for the provision, that soon after 
 the Hebrew became a dead language, it should be fur- 
 nished with vowel-points throughout, whilst aids for this 
 work still existed which at the present day are wanting. 
 
 The general preservation of our small Hebrew library 
 is in itself a true miracle of Time. Who could expect 
 from his hand to receive a work free from every defect ? 
 Let it suffice that, with defects beyond the reach of 
 prevention, we have also inherited the means for their cor- 
 rection. 
 
 SECTION 59.—Sources of this History. 
 
 The whole matter would be clear beyond controversy 
 were it possible to give a complete history of the Hebrew 
 text from century to century. The sources thereto are 
 extant, but they run shallow; they may possibly be only 
 obstructed in part, and the streams hereafter may flow 
 more copiously, provided human industry be first applied 
 to the removal of impediments. I reckon for this purpose 
 the old authors of versions, who have made use of the 
 original text: Philo, Josephus, and the Church Fathers, 
 and among them in particular Origen and Jerome; the 
 Talmud and the Masora, manuscripts and Bible editions. 
 
 SECTION 60.—Arrangement of the Materials for this 
 Purpose. 
 
 In the absence of previous researches I am only 
 able to produce a kind of plastered framework of such 
 a history. I must begin by premising a short description 
 of the original external shape of the Bible-books of the 
 Old Testament, after which the first outline of such a 
 history shall follow. 
 
 12 
 
116 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 First PART.—ORIGINAL EXTERNAL FORM OF THE 
 SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 SECTION 61.—Review. 
 
 None of all the books which now form the canon of 
 che Old Testament could by possibility in its journey 
 through time retain the external shape first bestowed upon 
 
 by its author. They have all of them not merely been 
 sompelled to complete the cycle of changes which human 
 aands have wrought upon a Homer and the rest of the 
 zreat series of classical writers—partly to the injury, partly 
 to the advantage, of posterity, sometimes from mere chance, 
 sometimes from necessity—but their original structure 
 has subjected them to some further changes, quite peculiar 
 to themselves. And if Moses were now to arise from the 
 dead, he would with difficulty recognise himself in the 
 company in which he is placed, and his writings in the 
 materials used for writing and the consonants with their 
 accompaniment of vowel-points and accents, and the 
 divisions into separate words, verses, and chapters, as 
 presented by manuscripts and editions. 
 
 Section 62.—1. Collection. 
 
 Many writings of the Old Testament did not acquire 
 their present form till after the death of their authors 
 (sec. 2). Probably before the Babylonian captivity there 
 existed small collections of the books of the Old Testament 
 (sec. 4), but our present complete collection took its origin 
 from the times subsequent to that event (sec. 5-7). 
 
WRITING MATERIALS 117 
 
 SECTION 63.—2. The Oldest Writing-materials. 
 
 The historical inquirer and the critic are both indeed 
 anxious to know the material upon which the authors of 
 the Old Testament first wrote their books—the former in 
 order to trace the progress of human art, the latter to be 
 able to calculate the duration of autographs; but owing 
 to the great distance of time and the silence of history it 
 cannot be stated with certainty. 
 
 Still a guess may be ventured about linen and the 
 skins of beasts. For all other writing-materials besides 
 these were either unknown to the old world, or of use 
 only in other lands too remote from Palestine. And of 
 the two mentioned linen seems the more probable. For 
 though it be the work of already advanced art, still animal 
 hides in a fit state for writing upon imply also artificial 
 preparation. Now the art of giving raw skins the proper 
 dressing for a writing-material was first acquired in the 
 age of King Attalus; on the other hand the invention of 
 linen-weaving was of a much earlier date. Wherefore 
 also in Egypt in the oldest times linen was used as a 
 material for writing upon, as appears from the mummy- 
 bandages, which are covered all over with illegible cha- 
 racters. It was found also by Pliny (xiii. 11), in the old 
 authors from whom he made extracts, that the use ot 
 lien for writing precedes the destruction of Troy.! 
 And is it not probable that Moses, who was born and bred 
 in Egypt, the native country of linen, and probably of the 
 written records imprinted thereon, employed this con- 
 venient material in the composition of his five books ? 
 
 ! A reviewer in the Universal German Library, Part 46, § 347, says, 
 in noticing the above passage, ‘ The reviewer believes certainly to have 
 found traces of it in Homer, in the third generation before the Trojan 
 
 war.’ Pity that the author of this is no longer alive and able through 
 me to impart to my readers his remarks upon the subject. 
 
118 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 And in this case, would not linen, after his example, have 
 been used for subsequent writings, and indeed for all trans- 
 actions in writing—linen which, moreover, at that time was 
 prepared to superfluity? Finally, in Jeremiah xxxvi. 23, 
 where a manuscript is burnt in the king’s chamber, skin 
 would not be a probable material, on account of the smell 
 it would have occasioned in the fire. 
 
 From all these considerations it seems to me extremely 
 probable that the Jews, like the Romans in the oldest 
 times, were in possession of their libros linteos. 
 
 SECTION 64.—3. Original Alphabet. 
 
 The character used by Moses was, on the whole— 
 allowance being made for the changes necessarily inflicted 
 by time and human dealing in the course of a thousand 
 years—the same alphabet employed in writing by all 
 authors down to the time of the Babylonian captivity. 
 Whether, however, Moses used the Chaldean square writ- 
 ing in which our Bibles are printed, or the old Samaritan 
 alphabet with which we are acquainted on coins, is a 
 question on which our antiquarians have not hitherto been 
 able to agree. 
 
 Is the whole inquiry into the primitive alphabet of 
 the Hebrew to be classed, as by some modern scholars, 
 amongst the pseudo-important speculations of trifling 
 pedants? Be it so! Only let it be considered what 
 excuse should be offered to Biblical criticism in de- 
 fence of such a dictum of authority. Does not this 
 inquiry, then, belong to a history of the text of the Old 
 Testament? Does not many a principle of criticism 
 depend upon it? And allowing our ancestors to have 
 conducted it with the most unlucky results, does it follow 
 that their successors, with the new aids at their service, 
 
CHARACTERS USED IN WRITING 119 
 
 must be equally unfortunate? And supposing it should 
 so turn out, should they have denied their fortune with the 
 new aids even a chance? 
 
 SECTION 65.—The Ancient Hebrews employed the Pheenico- 
 Egyptian Characters in Writing.—1. Proof from 
 History. 
 
 Jacob and his family brought probably with them no 
 knowledge of the art of writing into the land of Goshen ; 
 at least, in their history as few traces thereof appear as in 
 that of their ancestors. Their nomadic mode of life 
 enabled them also to dispense with it; and their powers of 
 memory, unimpaired from youth upwards by written 
 accounts, must by constant exercise on various occasions 
 have acquired such strength as fully to compensate for 
 the absence of writing. 
 
 If the greater part of the Hebrew nation became ac- 
 quainted with the art of writing before the Exodus (a 
 circumstance which appears to me highly improbable), 
 they must have acquired it under Egyptian tuition, and 
 become necessarily accustomed to the Egyptian written 
 character. 
 
 But, if the art of writing had been acquired by no 
 single Hebrew previous to the departure from Egypt, still 
 Moses, their great leader, was an adept therein, and he 
 wrote certainly with no other than Egyptian characters, 
 for he had received in the Court of Pharaoh an entirely 
 Egyptian education. Now Moses was the father of all 
 Hebrew authors, the awctor classicus of his nation; he was 
 the sacred source out of which all subsequent Hebrew writers 
 drew their language, imagery, and conceptions : would 
 they not have adhered also to the form of letters employed 
 by him ? 
 
120 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Now the Egyptians, in the very earliest times, had 
 adopted the Phcenician character, partly rediscovered by 
 Count Caylus and Biittner on the half-illegible mummy- 
 bandages: the Hebrew writers, then, used the Phcenico- 
 Egyptian characters.! 
 
 Section 66.—2. Proof from Tradition, and (3) from 
 Old Cowns. 
 
 Herewith also agrees the ancient tradition preserved 
 by Jerome: ‘In antiquis Hebreorum litteris,’ says he on 
 Ezekiel ix., ‘quibus usque hodie utuntur Samaritani’ (as the 
 good Church Fatherimagined), ‘ extrema Thau litera crucis 
 habet similitudinem.’ This is evident in the Egyptian 
 alphabet on mummy-bandages, in the Phcenician on coins, 
 in the so-called ancient Samaritan on coins, and in the 
 uncial writing of the Greeks brought by Cadmus with 
 him into Greece—everywhere has the Thau retained its 
 ancient cruciform figure.” 
 
 Finally, with the Phcenician-Egyptian alphabet the 
 features of the writing used in the legends on the so-called 
 
 1 Caylus, Recueil d’Antig. Egypt. t.i. p. 65 f., t. v. p. 77. Biittner’s 
 Tables of Comparison of the Kinds of Writing of various Nations in Past 
 and Present Times, vol. i., Goettingen, 1771, tab. ii. n. 2; only all the 
 single consonants introduced into the comparison-tables are not, accord- 
 ing to their significations, sufficiently developed, and hence also not so 
 arranged as to leave no doubt about them. Compare Büttner’s own con- 
 fession, §§ 12, 13. 
 
 2 Biittner’s Comparison Tables, vol. i. tab. ii. n. 2, compare with 
 n.1, col. 2; further, Hxplication de quelques medailles de peuples, de 
 villes et de Rois Grecques et Phéniciennes, par M. L. Dutens (a Londres, 
 chez John Thane, 1773). In his third copper-plate Dutens has brought 
 together those consonants which according to the unanimous opinion of 
 scholars are held to be purely Phoenician. This plate has been copied 
 in Michaelis’s Oriental and Exegetical Library, Part viii. § 16. The 
 most important work on Phcenician coins is that of Francis Percy Bagen, 
 De nummis Hebreo-Samaritanis (Valentie Edetanorum, MDCCLXXXI). 
 
CHARACTERS USED IN WRITING 121 
 
 Samaritan coins are nearly allied. They are engraved 
 certainly by Jews and not by Samaritans. For im the | 
 most part, on one side is found an urn with manna and 
 the inscription In» pw, ‘a shekel of Israel’; on the 
 other side is the almond-rod of Aaron, with the words, 
 nvapn oben, < Jerusalem the Holy City.’ As to the rest, 
 certainly all the extant specimens of these coins are not the 
 work of fraud, busy about them as it may have been: 
 doubtless many exist struck after the model of real ancient 
 exemplars.! The genuine old coins, even if struck after 
 the Babylonian captivity, may still afford evidence concern- 
 ing the alphabet in use among the Hebrews before that 
 event. For in the case of coins and inscriptions it was 
 customary to employ the old character, although it may 
 have been long superseded by a new style. Thus the 
 Arabs used the Kufic letters on their coins long after the 
 introduction among them of the Nes-chi. 
 
 For the reasons produced it appears to me of the 
 highest probability that the Hebrew writers wrote with the 
 letters of the Phcenico-Egyptian alphabet. If a desire 
 still exist to call it the old Samaritan, because an 
 acquaintance with a variety of it was first gained from the 
 so-named Samaritan coins, the term will be at least used 
 in a very improper sense, and occasion easily given, as ex- 
 perience already shows, to confound the old Samaritan 
 
 1 The specimens of these coins found and described, together with the 
 works which treat of them, have been tabulated by Everh. Dav. Hauber. 
 See his information concerning the Jewish (generally called Samaritan) 
 coins, and the works published respecting them, together with copper- 
 plate representations. Copenhagen, 1778. 8. The genuineness of these 
 coins has been disputed by Wagenseil, in Soter, p. 575. (See Carpzov, 
 Crit. S. pp. 235, 236, and Basnage in the ‘ History of the Jews,’ and Ol. 
 Gerh. Tychsen in a small piece entitled Concerning the Spuriousness of 
 the Jewish Coins with Hebrew and Samaritan Letters, Rostock, 1779. 8. 
 Of the controversies concerning them in modern times there is an 
 abstract in Eichorn’s Gen. Lib. of Bib. Lit. Part vi 534-549. 
 
123 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 writing on coins with the modern in the Jewish-Samari- 
 tan Pentateuch. 
 
 Section 67.— Introduction of the Chaldean Square 
 Character after the Babylonian Captivity. 
 
 This Phoenician or Phenico-Egyptian alphabet was 
 the oldest form of letter-writing, and common to the entire 
 East, in which the new Samaritan in the Hebrx&o- 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Chaldean square writing 
 in our Bible-editions, lay as embryos, to be in time 
 developed by the lapse of millennia and the work of 
 men’s hands. The changes suffered by single letters in 
 the countries where this character was used, were so great 
 that finally the original agreement of the alphabet in use 
 in Palestine and Chaldea was scarcely discernible by the 
 smallest traces. 
 
 When the best part of the Hebrew nation were com- 
 pelled by Nebuchadnezzar to exchange their ancient abode 
 on the Jordan for a new one on the Euphrates and the 
 Chaboras (Habor?) an entire metamorphosis was under- 
 gone by the Jews. Mixed up and in perpetual inter- 
 course with the native inhabitants of Chaldea and Assyria, 
 they became accustomed toa new language and a new form 
 of writing. Seventy years after, a great part returned 
 indeed to the land of their ancestors; but a return toancient 
 manners, the old language and written characters was 
 beyond imagination, and the national writings brought by 
 the colonists with them back were for the multitude sealed 
 hieroglyphics, to which but a few possessed the key— 
 namely, an acquaintance with the ancient alphabet. 
 
 Soon after the planting of the new State in Palestine, 
 the venerable remains of the Hebrew literary world before 
 the Babylonian exile were collected; what more prudent 
 
CHALDEAN SQUARE CHARACTER +23 
 
 step could be then taken than to exchange the old and 
 obsolete alphabet for the new one already in use? The 
 old tradition in Jerome and the Talmud attributes this 
 useful service to Ezra. ‘ Certum est,’ says Jerome, in the 
 Prologus Galeatus, ‘Esdram scribam legisque doctorem post 
 captam Hierosolymam et instaurationem templi cum 
 Zorobabele, alias litteras reperisse’ (so far asthe man who 
 introduces or brings something new into fashion is fre- 
 quently termed its inventor) ‘quibus nunc utimur, cum 
 ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebre- 
 orum characteres fuerint. Et tot litteris Pentateuchus a 
 Samaritanis descriptus est quot Hebreeus, que figuris 
 tantum et apicibus differunt.’ Just so also speaks the 
 Talmud, ‘ Tract. Sanhedrim,’ sec. 2. 
 
 I consider this tradition so consonant with the situa- 
 tion of the Jews and all their external circumstances that 
 according to my historical feeling I am unable so directly 
 to reject it. The difficulties in the transcription of the 
 Bible would not be greater than those encountered when 
 the uncial letters of the Greek and Latin manuscripts were 
 exchanged for the cursive character.! 
 
 1 To avoid mistakes, I repeat again expressly, that the square letters 
 introduced after the Babylonian captivity are not to be considered as 
 an entirely new kind of writing, quite different from the ancient, but 
 only as a variety thereof; that our present Chaldean square letters 
 must have been different in many points from those in the time of 
 Ezra, and approached very closely the old writing in use before the 
 Babylonian captivity (and also our present Samaritan in many of the 
 consonants). On the stay of the Jews in the land of their conquerors 
 their old writing became either adulterated with that variety of a 
 common mother they had made acquaintance with in their exile, or the 
 Jews adopted altogether the style in use in Chaldea; in both cases the 
 Hebrew writing became extremely vacillating and uncertain. Ezra put 
 an end to this uncertainty in the form of writing, or use of a double 
 though allied alphabet, the Chaldean or the Hebrew mixed with it; 
 introduced, on the founding of the new national library,a fixed form 
 of writing, out of which, in the course of centuries (for under human 
 
124 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ‘But Josephus and Philo are silent upon the matter.’ 
 As if they were under a necessity of speaking upon it! 
 They are silent also upon the collection of the writings of 
 the Old Testament after the Babylonian captivity ; and yet 
 it will be denied by no one that such collection was made 
 soon after the occurrence of that event. Finally, at the 
 bottom of such traditions a real fact usually exists, even 
 should it not answer in detail to the strictest historical 
 truth. 
 
 ‘But did not Ezra act unwisely in rendering at once 
 all previous manuscripts useless?’ As if the Old Testa- 
 ment before had been so often transcribed! The Books of 
 Moses, perhaps also some few besides, may have been extant 
 in numerous copies; but were there numerous copies also 
 of a complete collection of all the books written before the 
 captivity? Finally, the books composed during and after 
 the Babylonian captivity were, in all probability, written 
 
 agency, which is always altering, improving, and destroying, no alpha- 
 bet can remain the same) the square alphabet of our Hebrew writing 
 was formed. Ezra then fixed the writing in which thenceforth the 
 holy books were to be copied ; this appears from the above reasons ex- 
 tremely probable; but whether the character of their conquerors 
 adopted by the Jews in their captivity, or a corrupt style from the 
 mixture of two allied descriptions of writing, the old Hebrew and 
 Babylonian, was the cause moving him thereto, must be left to the 
 judgment of every one. In either case, however, the undertaking 
 of Ezra was most valuable. Still it was not in the power of Ezra to 
 prevent all future changes in the alphabet ; more especially does it ap- 
 pear liable to mutations as long as it was the common character used 
 on all occasions of business in every-day life before the formation of a 
 more appropriate running-hand out of it. Whether, however, the 
 changes were great or small which affected the separate consonants up 
 to that time, cannot be determined; but with great certainty it may be 
 assumed that since the Talmud and Jerome the features of our square 
 writing have remained essentially unaltered, for isolated trifles, hookings 
 together, and embellishments, which leave the shapes of the consonants 
 but little changed, cannot here come under consideration. 
 
VOWEL-POINTS 125 
 
 in the Chaldean square character, which was familiar to 
 their authors. From this consideration does not the adopted 
 transcription of the Old Testament become probable ? ! 
 
 SECTION 68.—4. Vowel-points. 
 
 The Phonico-Egyptian character had vowel-marks, as 
 may be seen from Biittner’s ‘Tables of Comparison.’ The 
 Hebrew authors may at that time then have provided their 
 writings with vowels. 
 
 But it was no necessary matter. In like manner as the 
 Arabs in the first centuries after Mahomet wrote their Koran 
 entirely without vowels, and yet read and understood it,? 
 and as the Persians in our own times read fluently their 
 books without vowel-points,? just so might a born Jew, by 
 virtue of his language being still a living one, have under- 
 stood without much difficulty his ancient national books, 
 even if written without points. 
 
 1 Respecting the controversy concerning the primitive alphabet of 
 the O. T. as far as it has hitherto been carried on, sufficient information 
 may be obtained from the following works :—For the age of the square 
 alphabet Jo. Buxtorf. Dissert. iv. philologico-theologice ; Steph. Morinus 
 De Lingua Primeva, Part ii. c. 4, p. 187; Wolfii Biblioth. Hebr. 
 t. ii. p. 419. Their arguments are in part wretched. 1. Matt. v. 
 17,18. 2, The (counterfeit) Jewish coins with Chaldean inscriptions. 
 3. The (fictitious) epitaphs of Abraham, Isaac, and other patriarchs. 
 4, The variations of the Hebrew-Samaritan Pentateuch from the 
 Hebrew-Jewish, which should occur most frequently where in the 
 Chaldean alphabet the consonants are very nearly allied in figure. For 
 the age of the old Samaritan alphabet the authorities have been com- 
 pletely collected by Walton, Proleg. ad Polygl.(Londin.). Many of these 
 are also wretched, as for instance, that from Daniel i. 4. The latest 
 work which has reduced the reasonings of both parties into a satisfactory 
 abridgment is that of Joseph Dobrowsky, De Antiquis Hebreorum 
 Characteribus Dissertatio, in qua speciatim Origenis Hieronymique fides 
 Josephi Flavi testimonio defenditur (Pragx, 1783. 8). The author is an 
 advocate for the high antiquity of the Samaritan letters. 
 
 2 Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient. p. 87; Sale, Proleg. in Coran. 
 
 3 Chardin, Voyage en Perse, t. ili. p. 148. 
 
126 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 But it is not at all probable that the authors of the 
 writings of the Old Testament supplied them with vowel- 
 points throughout; for, 1. The old translators altogether, 
 the Seventy interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, 
 Jerome, the Syrian, Chaldean, Arabian, in translating 
 from the Hebrew, vary, in all the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, in endless passages, not merely from our present 
 punctuation, but also amongst themselves from one another 
 in pointing single words. Is it probable that not one of 
 them all could obtain a pointed manuscript, or might have 
 possessed one accidentally, even allowing that pointed 
 codices at their time were extremely rare ? Is it not rather 
 much more to be inferred that at that time not a single 
 manuscript existed supplied throughout with vowels ? The 
 Chaldean paraphrase, however, agrees in the punctuation 
 of single words, much oftener than all the other ancient 
 versions, with our pointed Masoretic text—sometimes for- 
 tunately, sometimes otherwise (that is, even where the 
 most modest and considerate critic must reject the punctua- 
 tion)—but not because its authors had manuscripts pro- 
 vided with vowels before them (for even they endlessly 
 vary from our points), but because subsequent punctuators 
 availed themselves of their labour as a commentary, or 
 because they had before them the sense of the Old Testa- 
 ment according to their church version, as our expositors 
 in their labours had often Luther’s translation, since they 
 from their youth upwards had been accustomed to that as 
 we to this. 
 
 2. Origen or whoever was the author of the Hebrew 
 text printed in Greek characters, adopted by every critic, 
 in the Hexapla, was not in possession of a thoroughly 
 pointed manuscript, and hence wrote the Hebrew words 
 after a very fluctuating pronunciation and differing from 
 our present pointing. Let a comparison anywhere in 
 
VOWEL-POINTS 127 
 
 Montfaucon’s Hexapla be made—for instance, Hos. xi. 1, 
 xe vep “lopanr οὐεαβηου οὐ weuusopaiu kapadı Bari, 
 where "Y2 is given as the expression instead of Vv) and 
 NIS) instead of 47308). 
 
 3. Jerome expresses himself in such a manner of his 
 Hebrew MS. that it could not possibly have been pointed 
 throughout: sometimes he finds both the pronunciation 
 and the sense of words unfixed for the want of vowels, but 
 soon after everything is plain by their presence. ‘Thus he 
 speaks of Habak. iii. 5: ‘Pro eo quod nos transtulimus 
 mortem, in Hebreo tres litterse sunt posite, 127 absque 
 ulla vocali; qua si legantur dabar, verbum significant, 
 si deber, pestem.’! On the other hand, 1 B. Moses xlvii. 33, 
 his manuscript decided by certain points, 73% (bed), is to be 
 read and not 799 (sceptre). ‘ Hoc loco,’ he says, ‘ quidam 
 frustra simulant, adorasse Jacob summitatem sceptri 
 Joseph, quod videlicet honorans filium potestatem ejus 
 adoraverit, cum in Hebreo multum aliter legatur, “et 
 adoravit Israel ad caput lectuli.”’ Compare ‘ Queestiones in 
 Genes.’ xxvi. 12. 
 
 4, Also the Talmud in its disputes respecting single 
 passages of the Old Testament sometimes supposes pointed 
 words and elsewhere unpointed. When the Talmudists 
 contend whether Moses 2 B. xxi. 8, is to be read 17333 
 M2 or 72 17223,2 or Moses 3 B. xii. 5, D’yaY or oway,3 
 
 1 Compare Jerome ad Jerem. ix. 22; Ep. ad Evagr. 126; Question. 
 in Genes. Xxxvi. 24, &c. Concerning the vowels in Jerome’s Hebrew 
 MS. see Repertorium for Bib. and Eastern Lit. Part ii. § 270: and on 
 the other hand Ol. Gerh. Tychsen, Recollections, in the same, Part iii. 
 § 127 f. 
 
 2 Tract. Kidush.c. 1, fol. 18, a, b. 
 
 3 Tract. Sanhedrim, c. 1, fol. 4, p. 1. See also Ol. Gerh. Tychsen 
 respecting the age of the Hebrew points in the Repertoriwm for Bib. 
 and Eastern Lit. Part iii. § 105 ff. Of his learned remarks I can quote 
 many for my opinion, although different from his. 
 
128 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the notice of these different pronunciations, since both 
 times the same consonants appear, presupposes certain 
 signs by which the variation of the utterance is decided. 
 But on the other side had thoroughly pointed manuscripts 
 existed in the times of the Talmudical doctors, they 
 would not have differed respecting the pronunciation of so 
 many single words; appeals would have been made to 
 manuscripts and the disputes decided by them, or a contest 
 would have arisen respecting the value of manuscripts which 
 pointed the same passage in various ways. But on these 
 occasions manuscripts are not at all mentioned; it is 
 recorded, however, that Joab finished the strife with his 
 teacher as to whether 5 B. Moses xxv. 19, 132 or 73? was 
 the right reading in the same manner as Alexander solved 
 the possibility of loosing the Gordian knot by the sword. 
 
 Finally, the treatise ‘Sopherim ἡ is quite silent about 
 points. Why, then, did it order the transcriber of the 
 Thora not to leave his copy without points ? 
 
 Section 69.—Probably Vowel-points were used by the 
 Authors here and there. 
 
 The result of these remarks is that, down to the fifth 
 century after the birth of Christ, there are many appear- 
 ances which contradict the idea of a complete punctuation 
 of all words in the Bible. Still in Jerome and the 
 Talmud traces enough of vowel-points and isolated pointed 
 words and passages occur. In order to reconcile these 
 contradictory appearances, it will be necessary to admit 
 that originally vowel-points were applied only here and 
 there to single words and sentences by the authors them- 
 selves, or at least in early times by the readers of their 
 writings. 
 
 1. It was useful here and there, by means of vowel- 
 
VOWEL-POINTS 129 
 
 marks, to fix sense and pronunciation. Still, however, in 
 most cases, a native Jew was just as able to read without 
 difficulty an unpointed book as an ancient Arab or a 
 modern Persian (sec. 68). But still ambiguous passages 
 occurred, where there was danger of missing the sense of 
 the author, as 1 B. Moses xi. 3, sind ond mm Sonn, or 
 4. B. Mikes xii. 6, AND. The Apokakkion of a few vow 
 points in such cases, while the Hebrew was a living 
 language, would prevent all mistakes.! And after it became 
 a dead language, all future misunderstandings which might 
 now have arisen in a book composed of consonants without 
 vowel-marks, were prevented by an all-wise Providence, 
 which raised up grammarians to provide, guided by their 
 mother-tongue, words with vowel-points. 
 
 2. It was agreeable to analogy. In the Arabic and 
 Syrian manuscripts the sense of ambiguous passages 
 is here and there fixed by the application of vowel-points, 
 which probably originate with the authors. 
 
 3. It was possible. For it is a groundless opinion that 
 in the invention of the most ancient Oriental alphabets no 
 provision was made for vowels.” Syllable-writing accord- 
 
 1 Without the supposition of certain marks in many places, the 
 origin of the selected punctuation is inexplicable. Job xxxi. 36, nny 
 
 is in the plural, when the connection rather requires ΛΩΝ; and 
 Zech. vi. 11, the removal of the plural nny is still more desirable, and 
 
 yet the LXX must have found a mark which decided for the plural, since 
 they translate oregavovs. In other places our vowels are placed with 
 such propriety, as to lead the mind unconsciously to foreign aid from 
 the hand of the author. For instance, 1 Samuel ii. 20 yoy; 2 B. Moses 
 xxxi. NV, Kc. 
 
 2 Herder, in the Spirit of Hebr. Poesy, Part i. § 28, says very strik- 
 ingly : ‘Who would write letters without aspiration, which animates 
 them? since upon the last everything depends, and it in reality is 
 easier to denote in a general way than the various sounds of the organs. 
 
 K 
 
130 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ing to the progress of human inventions, as described 
 by history, must have preceded letter-writing. And then 
 also in all the kinds of Oriental writing with which we have 
 a nearer acquaintance, three vowel-marks are to be seen. 
 
 I. The Phcenico-Egyptian alphabet on the mummy- 
 bandages is supplied with vowel-points, and in my opinion 
 indeed with three (Büttner’s ‘ Tables of Comparison,’ tab. ii. 
 n. 2, compare sec. 13). 
 
 II. Just so with the Syrian alphabet. (a) The Sabzo- 
 Syrian syllable-character, used by the Nabatzeans (Chris- 
 tians of St. John, Mendai I]jai), has three consonants 
 united with vowels (Biittner’s ‘Tables of Comparison,’ 
 tab. 1. n. 3). 
 
 (b) The Syrian alphabet, in which the manuscript of 
 the Syrian Bible-version was written, used by Ephraim 
 the Syrian in the fourth century, had also vowel-points 
 by which the expression and sense of such words were 
 distinguished as in point of consonants only were the 
 same. ‘Sciendum est,’ he writes on 1 Book Moses xxxvi. 
 24, ‘quod in utroque huc usque testamento semper 
 Ἰξκουῦ (Chemre) invenerimus, non autem ];So,, (Chmore), 
 ut putant aliqui ex inscitia.’! Now it is evident from 
 this passage that the Syrian alphabet both before and 
 in the time of Ephraim had vowel-points, but not how 
 many. But from the history of the Syrian alphabet 
 it becomes extremely probable that three only were 
 capable of application. For after the sixth century, when a 
 Syrian Cadmus, Mar Amer, penetrated into Arabia, the 
 Syrians were then unable to communicate to their scholars 
 in the art of writing, the Arabians, more than three vowel- 
 
 If the more difficult were once accomplished, the easier task, upon 
 which, too, the whole object of the labour rested, would not be left un- 
 completed.’ 
 
 1! Ephrem Syri Opp. t. i. p. 184. In Catena. 
 
VOWEL-POINTS 191 
 
 marks, for the Cufic character possessed at that time no 
 more.! 
 
 Nay, in the year of Christ 770 they possessed not so 
 many vowel-points as the Greeks had vowels. For when 
 at that time the Maronite Jacob of Edessa wished to 
 translate Homer into the Syrian, he found himself deficient 
 in vowel-marks to express. with sufficient accuracy in 
 Syrian letters the Greek nomina propria. He was there- 
 fore compelled to place the Greek vowels over the Syrian 
 consonants.? 
 
 Now the Syrians before Ephraim probably used the 
 writing in which the Palmyrenean inscriptions are com- 
 posed, which in part at least took their origin in the first 
 centuries after the birth of Christ. This writing is purely 
 Hebrew, and nearly allied with our square alphabet.° 
 Our square character, then, in which subsequent to the 
 Babylonian captivity the books. of the Old Testament were 
 written, must have been in like manner supplied with 
 three vowel-marks. On the Palmyrenean inscriptions, how- 
 ever, no vowel-marks are visible; and om coins and stone 
 inscriptions such trifles, which are difficult to introduce, 
 are generally entirely omitted. 
 
 Or, if it be preferred to make the Syrians before 
 Ephraim use rather the Estranghelo, this latter, for the 
 above reason, was in possession of three vowel-points. 
 Now the Estranghelo bears so strong a resemblance to 
 the features of the Palmyrenean character that one must 
 necessarily be derived from the other; and my inference, 
 drawn from the structure of the square character intro- 
 
 ' Adler, Descriptio Codicum quorundam Cuficorum, Ὁ. 30; compare 
 the second plate annexed to this treatise. 
 
 2 Abulfuragii Historia Dynastarum, Ὁ. 40, c. 228; Assemani 
 Biblioth. Orient. t. i. pp. 64, 521. 
 
 3. Buttner’s Zables of Comp. tab. i. un. 1, col. 1. 
 
132 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 duced after the Babylonian captivity, remains immovably 
 established.! 
 
 III. Even the punctuation now in use proceeds on the 
 supposition of three vowel-marks. 1. The Sheva is only 
 joined with A, Εἰ, and O (which may be compared with 
 the three vowel-points of the Arabs—Fatha, Kesre, and 
 Dhamma); why not with more, why not also with Khirik 
 and Kibbüts, if our present numerous points were already 
 in use in very ancient times? 2. The forms of the verbs 
 proceed upon three chief forms in combination with three 
 vowels 5yp ans $5! as in the Arabic. With the nouns, 
 however, the reference to their principal forms is far more 
 difficult and entangled; but where there is still a possi- 
 bility of coming at the basis, three chief-forms with A, E, 
 and O, are visible, as with the nominibus segolatis IPB, 
 IPB, and 3p8,? and which is again the case in the Arabic. 
 8, The ee change of vowels—that is, that which is 
 not occasioned by any consonant producing anomalies, nor 
 by any other cause which can be assigned out of the other 
 
 ! Schultens, in order to confirm the previous theory of the gradual 
 origin of our present numerous vowel-points, cites from the hook Cosri 
 ‘that originally only three vowel-points could have existed, since in 
 the seventh century they had been converted into three classes of 
 vowels, into which the seven vowels of the Greeks had been inserted : 
 
 1. Komats = ο 
 1. Komats< 2. Cholem = ὡ 2. Patachs = eae ss 
 3. Shurek = v .Segol = 
 6. Khirek = 
 3. Sheba { 7 Seals a 
 
 2 See Schultens’ Institut. Z. H. p. 48. After him this remark was 
 used by Joh. David Michaelis in the Observationes de Syrorum Vocalibus 
 ex Ephremo (in the Commentationes in Societ. Reg. Scient. Getting. 
 per annos 1755-1762 prelecte, Brem&, 1784, ὃ 167 ff.). But after 
 what has been advanced against it by Dresde (in the preface to the 
 Elementa Sermonis Hebr.), and Trendelenburg (in the Zepertorium of 
 Bibl. and Eastern Lit. Part xviii. n. 2), this argument must be given 
 
 up. 
 
VOWEL-POINTS 133 
 
 Oriental languages—appears to bring back our present 
 numerous vowel- points to three chief ones, and to declare 
 the rest for signs only of the finer graduations of the 
 p::neipal sound. At pleasure are made to reciprocate with 
 one another 8, 8, and 8; also δὲ, 8, and &; and finally 
 1, 4, 8, and & Khatüph,! ipa of ἘΠΕῚ ΠΥ" vowel-classes 
 arise: 1, to class A, which agrees with the Fatha of 
 the ener belong Kaméts, Pathakh, and Segél; 2, to 
 class E, the Kesre of the Arabs, Khirik, and Segöl ; 3, to 
 class O, the Dhamma of the Arabs, belong Shurék, 
 Kamöts-Khatüph, and Kibbats; 4, and this entire repre- 
 sentation is perhaps confirmed by the division into simple 
 and composite vowels, made by the Jewish grammarians. 
 This, perhaps, became usual after not merely the principal 
 but the inferior tones also were provided with signs, and 
 was transmitted to the later Rabbins by oral tradition. 
 According to Ebn Ezra, Kholem, Khirik, and Pathakh are 
 simple vowels; the rest, the composite, arose out of these 
 by the combinations of many points and strokes. If then 
 in the oldest times, the most simple of our present vowel- 
 marks of each class served for all kinds of tones, a 
 point over the word indicated doubtless the class O, a point 
 under the word the class H, and a fine stroke under the word 
 the class A, according to a simplicity observed also by the 
 Cufic and present Arabian alphabet with regard to the signs 
 and situations of vowels. Is not the entire East in favour 
 of this representation ? ? 
 
 1 We say at pleasure ΡΠ and Sopa, 72 and 1), δ)» and EN, 
 12 and }2, DI} and OD}, Mov and nidying, 875 and NV, 
 Dip) and Dip’, OY and OMY, 33Y and 33Y7, DRM and OPN, 
 
 novin and movin, &c. 
 2 What, suitably to my purpose, I could only here touch upon, has 
 been clearly and fully demonstrated by Von Trendelenburg in the 
 
134 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 70.—Result of the Previous Inquiry. 
 
 From the foregoing observations we may conclude toa 
 certainty in my opinion that the ancient Hebrews possessed 
 vowel-points, but not the entire number now in use, in 
 all probability only three; that the old Hebrew authors 
 may have supplied their books with vowels indeed, but not 
 throughout ; and that our present system of punctuation 
 arose late, probably not till the Hebrew had become a dead 
 language. Until that event sufficient care to secure the 
 sense of a word and the true pronunciation of a word would 
 have been taken, if in general the chief sound intended to 
 be heard in any syllable were indicated by a point, and the 
 task left to the living language to mark the finer gradua- 
 tion of tone, each time meant to be joined with the general 
 vowel-point. But when the Hebrew began to be a dead 
 language, or had become already such, it was difficult to 
 hit always the right sound of the general vowel-mark, and 
 assion to each word its due fineness of intonation; and it 
 became a necessity to separate the various possible sounds 
 belonging to each vowel-point, and to attach, as far as 
 possible, to each shade of the same some peculiar mark. 
 But because, either (through the complete death of the 
 
 Repertory for Bibl. and Eastern Literature, Part xviii. ὃ 78 ff. Gene- 
 rally speaking, the high antiquity of our artificial system of punctuation, 
 just on account of its very subtilisation, would have been long ago 
 brought into doubt had the examination been less in the hands of 
 mere closet-students, for whom nothing can be too fine drawn, and who, 
 from mere self-deception, imagined that all sounds are capable of 
 being expressed in writing, or used to be so expressed. Who has ever 
 yet invented signs for every vowel of every dialect of our tongue, and 
 who uses them? They ought besides to be only general signs. Every 
 one modifies the sounds they indicate according to his organs ; and was, 
 in fact, the pronunciation of the Hebrews so finely regulated as we 
 fancy? Perhaps it was just as lawless as the old German language 
 according to Ditfried. 
 
VOWEL-POINTS 135 
 
 Hebrew language now already accomplished) it was no 
 longer possible in every case to give the exact tone of the 
 vowel formerly heard, or because the ear of the Jews who 
 commenced our system of punctuation was by the influence 
 of other dialects already too much untuned; or because, 
 frequently even in the life of the Hebrew language, in 
 certain syllables certain allied vowel-tones reciprocated 
 with each other; or because it was not possible accurately 
 to express in writing the delicacies of every shade, in the 
 carrying out of the punctuation, in the same word in 
 different places, vowels of the same class were at pleasure 
 exchanged with one another. This was the true cause of 
 that arbitrary change of vowels, which now encumbers with 
 such difficulty an accurate acquisition of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, and forms the great difference between the Hebrew 
 and other Oriental dialects. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE AGE 
 OF OUR HEBREW VOWEL-POINTS. 
 
 Jacob Percy de Valencia in his commentary on the 
 Psalms first denied the so-called divine authority of our 
 present punctuation. Elias Levita next to him has ex- 
 pressed the same opinion; therefore Deyling might have 
 spared his congratulations to all Christendom, that no 
 Christian but a Jewish head (Elias Levita as he supposed) 
 hatched the fancy of the recent origin of our present usual 
 punctuation. Since that time the question of its antiquity 
 has become a ball for the amusement of philosophical 
 polemics. The contest assumed its liveliest phase between 
 the two Buxtorfs, father and son, and Cappellus. Buxtorf, 
 the father, brought forward his system in the ‘ Tiberias’ 
 (cap. viii. p. 880 ff.), in reply to which Cappellus wrote 
 his‘ Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum,’ which Buxtorf, the 
 
136 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 son, answered in the ‘Tractatus de Punctorum Origine, 
 Antiquitate,’ &c. This last work was rejoined to by Cap- 
 pellus in the ‘ Vindicie Arcani Punctat. Revel.,’ printed to- 
 gether with his first work in Cappelli ‘ Commentarii et Not. 
 Critic.’ (Amstel. 1689, fol.). Since that time sides only 
 have been taken in this matter—some scholars have adhered 
 to Buxtorf, others to Cappellus. Buxtorf’s proofs for the 
 high antiquity of our punctuation were: 1, without 
 vowel-points the sense of the Old Testament would be 
 uncertain; 2, Matthew v. 18, by the words psa κεραία 
 vowel-points must be understood; 3, some passages out of 
 the Book Zohar and the Talmud. Cappellus, on the 
 other side, and his followers refer: 1, to the old Samaritan 
 alphabet on coins, which is without vowel-points ; 2, to the 
 unpointed manuscripts, and particularly the unpointed 
 Thora; 8, to the old Bible translators ; 4, to Origen and 
 Jerome, who knew as little about pointed manuscripts as, 5, 
 the Talmud and the Corpus Cabbalisticum. (See Tychsen 
 concerning the age of the Hebrew vowels, in the ‘ Reper- 
 torium for Bib. and Eastern Literature,’ pt. iii. sec. 102 ff.) 
 
 In modern times, as far as 1 am aware, Schultens first 
 brought anything fresh to bear on the subject. He takes, 
 according to the analogy of the other Eastern alphabets, 
 some vowel-marks as primitive and used by Hebrew 
 authors; only he nowhere supports his opinion at large 
 (Schultens’ ‘ Institut. Ling. Hebr.’ preef. 3, pp. 48-62 ff.). 
 Since his time Joh. Dav. Michaelis has published his 
 unsatisfactory grounds for the high antiquity of our 
 present punctuation in the second part of his miscella- 
 neous writings. In order to test the satisfactory grounds 
 adduced by me, compare besides the above-named works 
 Dupuy,‘ Dissertation philologique et critique sur les voyelles 
 de la langue hebraique,’ in the ‘ Histoire de l’Acad&mie des 
 Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, &c., t. 36 (Par. 1775, 4); 
 
ACCENTS 137 
 
 Matth. Norberg,‘ Dissert. de’ Hebreeorum Vocalibus ’ (Lund. 
 1784, 4) ; Trendelenburg, Treatise in the ‘ Repert. for Bibl. 
 and Eastern Lit.’ pt. xviii. n. 2. 
 
 SECTION 71.—5. Accents. 
 
 If the present series of vowels did not exist in the 
 oldest times, the whole entangled train of diacritical points, 
 together with the fixing of the accents connected with 
 them, falls to the ground. 
 
 Our accents, according to their present number and 
 application, cannot possibly be contemporary with the 
 writers of the Old Testament. Now they serve to show 
 the syllable of emphasis and the relation of one word to 
 another. Is it possible that a language in its life-time 
 can require such crutches to keep up its accent, especially 
 since, as experience teaches, the pronunciation can never 
 be marked with sufficient accuracy by signs, and is acquired 
 most easily and exactly by the ear? Is it possible that 
 such signs for accentuation could ever be in use amongst 
 a people the major part of whom were never learned, 
 and of whom very few possessed the ability of reading 
 written characters, when language, whilst spoken, was 
 never elaborated by grammarians? Finally, can the 
 Hebrews have fixed the accentuation in so uniform a mode 
 and exactly in that prescribed by the accents ? 
 
 And first the quantitas relativa, indicated by the 
 accents ; would any people encumber its living language 
 with such wretched fancies? Is it not absurd to suppose 
 that every author should cut up his text into verses, and 
 then subsequently accent it? Theories of this kind 
 come forth the indelibly-stamped painful progeny of 
 indolent grammarians! Finally, with our present accen- 
 tuation what is taken for granted? Separate position of 
 
138 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 each word, and division into verses—all of which is later 
 than the origin of the Hebrew Writings (sec. 73-77) ; can, 
 then, the high age of our order of accents be compatible 
 with this ? 
 
 Still, if not all at present in use, yet the greatest part 
 of our accent-forms must have been introduced into some 
 at least, if not into all, the books of the Old Testament by 
 the ancients. Without this supposition I should be quite 
 at a loss to explain the singular idea of marking by means 
 of signs the relation either near or remote in which a word 
 should stand connected with its next neighbour. Certain 
 signs being already in existence whose true original appli- 
 cation nobody was any longer acquainted with, Jewish 
 heads may be imagined to have played with them a long 
 time in good Rabbinical wise ; a Rabbi of eminence then 
 arose, who out of the separate recreations formed a system- 
 atic whole: thus the origin of so singular an invention may 
 be more easily realised. 
 
 Now the Hebrews had attained a certain proficiency 
 in music. David and Solomon maintained regular choirs. 
 Here nothing was to be done without musical notes. 
 It is therefore a very probable tradition that our accent- 
 figures were placed as notes under their songs by the 
 poets (who in the old world were always at the same 
 time their own composers), in order to regulate the course 
 of singing and of the accompanying instruments. 
 
 But in that case accents could only be expected in 
 songs and metrical books; in prose works, on the contrary, 
 they would be absent. Not till later, at a time when the 
 old destination of notes was long forgotten, it was thought 
 necessary to apply them to prose books. Since in the Kast 
 even now prose is oftener sung than read, how intelligible 
 is the conception of applying these notes to prose books also, 
 and to fix the quantitatem relativam, as well with regard to 
 
ACCENTS 139 
 
 modulation as the explanation and permanence of the 
 sense. ‘The prose books, however, contain longer periods ; 
 therefore the invention of new accent forms and a new 
 prosaical accentuation, differing from the metrical, could 
 not be dispensed with.! 
 
 However new our present accentuation may be, it 
 still follows in many places primitive divisions, and expla- 
 nations grounded thereupon, which must have been pre- 
 served by tradition. Without this supposition at least no 
 explanation can be imagined why many ancient translators 
 agree with our accents as to divisions whose incorrectness 
 is evident on the slightest inspection. Thus we find 
 Aquila carried on, according to our accents, Psalm x. 15, 
 ΝῊ) quite improperly to the second member of the verse: 
 Asafa. 0 woh. In an] otde05 a8 ‘vainly 
 does he inquire into his impiety’ (yw wintn yn) “that it 
 may not be found.’? In the fragment of the oldest manu- 
 script of the LXX (perhaps the oldest in the world) in 
 the Cottonian Library are found characters for distinction 
 which are applied quite conformably to the Hebrew 
 accents—1 Book Moses xxxv. 10 :—Kaı εἰπεν αὐτῳ ott 
 To ὀνομα σου Ἶακωβ, ov κληθησεται ἐτι 'larwß ἀλλα 
 Ἰσραὴλ ; and in the Hebrew it stands Ἴ apy’. 1 Book 
 Moses xlviii. 6, Grabe marks cos ἐσονται ‘cum signo 
 distinctionis’ (17° 1?) as in the Hebrew, since in the 
 printed Greek the break is put after ἀδελῴων adtov.® 
 
 ' Jablonski, Pref.ad Bibl. Hebr. § 22 £.; Christian Bened. Michaelis, 
 Dissertatio qua Ritualia Sacra ex Corano illustrantur, ὃ 15; Chardin, 
 Voyage en Perse, t.i p. 127. The meaning of accentus with Jerome, see 
 in the Repertoriwm for Bibl. and Eastern Lit. Part ii. § 281 f.; Part iii. 
 § 141 f. 
 
 2 Repert. for Bib. and Eastern Lit. Part xiii. § 185. 
 
 ® Repert. for Bib. and Oriental Lit. Part xiv. $ 35. 
 
140 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 72.—6. Diacritical Points. 
 
 With the vowel-points and accents the other diacritical 
 points sink down to a lower age. I find in Jerome little 
 trace of the distinctive point of Shin from Sin, or of the 
 Dagesh strong and low, and Mappik and Raphé; I find 
 many more passages which render their presence in his 
 manuscript improbable. (See below, sec. 125.) 
 
 Section 73.—7. The Hebrews wrote Word to Word. 
 
 Greeks and Romans in the oldest times wrote word to 
 word, letter to letter, without leaving a small space between 
 single words. Grammarians first introduced separation of 
 words into the manuscripts of those authors which they used 
 as school books. This arrangement characterised also the 
 sacred Books of the Hebrews, and ifan empty space was any- 
 where left, it was only at the commencement of the principal 
 sections. 1. For otherwise what explanation can be adduced 
 why the oldest translators, not merely here and there (for in 
 that case they might have done it for the sake of the sense), 
 but in every book in numberless places, differ in their word- 
 divisions? that they express in their versions sometimes a 
 more suitable separation of words and more adapted also to 
 the author, and sometimes one less convenient than that of 
 the Masoretical edition ? Here follow some examples out of 
 the many which I could cite. Hos. vi. 5 requires, accord- 
 ing to the LXX, the Syrian, and the Chaldean, to be 
 divided 8%? IND ‘HEY, and Jeremiah xxiii. 33, with the 
 LXX and Vulgate, 87 DAN instead of δἰ ΠΣ ΠΣ as it is 
 printed. 1 Chron. xvii. 10, Hebr. 79 7381, the LXX καὶ 
 αὐξησω σε, 12738). Proverbs ii. 7, Hebr., Vulg., Chald., 
 Syr., on ἜΡΩΣ the LXX, on the contrary, as one word, 
 onısbnb; compare Nahum ii. 6, Ps. Ixviii. 25. Ps. evi. 7, 
 o-by the Hebrew, with all ancient texts, except the 
 
NO DIVISION OF WORDS 141 
 
 LXX, who pronounced 599. Hos. xi. 2, Hebr. with all 
 ancient texts except the LXX, Onan; the LXX in two 
 words, 07 222. Zeph. iii. 19, Hebr. y3yp">a"ns; LXX on 
 the contrary nd MN ἐν σοι ἕνεκεν cov. Cappellus, ‘ Crit. 
 Sac.’ lib. iv., has collected more examples out of the LXX. 
 
 Only the Chaldean versions harmonise, in most in- 
 stances, with our Masoretical division of words—sometimes 
 because here and there divided words were already found by 
 them (sec. 76) ; sometimes because in the division of words, 
 as well as in the punctuation (sec. 68, 1), they have been 
 followed ; sometimes because since their time the division 
 of words introduced by the Masorites has been altered. 
 
 With this view I will excerpt merely one page of the 
 Bible. Ps. xlii. 6, the final words of the two following 
 verses, ver. 12 and ver. 5 of Ps. xliii. show that some manu- 
 scripts, the LXX, Vulgate, the Arabian, and Ethiopian, 
 conclude the verse more properly with oN), 25, than the 
 printed text, with the Chaldean, Aquila, and Symmachus. 
 Ps. xliii. 2, Hebr., Syrian, and Chaldean “y9 ‘>; the 
 LXX on the contrary, together with Jerome, the Vulgate, 
 and the Arabian, ἽΝ O'%08. Ps. xliv. 5, the printed text 
 and the Chaldean my o'ndx; LXX, on the contrary 
 
 (Vulgate, Arabian, and Ethiopian), and the Syrian divide 
 _ more correctly, according to the parallelism, 73x) oN, 
 
 2. Should not, then, the traditional saying of the 
 Jews be allowed to testify to this original shape of the 
 sacred books of the Hebrews, that ‘formerly the whole 
 Law was merely one word,’ or, according to another, one 
 verse only?! a saying which becomes so much more 
 
 1 Elias Levita, Massoreth Hammassoreth, pref. iii.; R. Mose Ben 
 Nachman, Proém. Commentat.in Legem; Hassenkamp’s reasons against 
 Kennicott’s remarks upon 1 Sam. vi. 19, § 68. No wonder, then, that 
 even the Masorites do not everywhere agree in the division of words, 
 as Job xxxviii. 12 and other places. New divisions of words are there- 
 
142 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 probable, since on the Samaritan and Pheenician coins and 
 Palmyrenean stone-inscriptions letter is linked on to 
 letter. | 
 
 3. Nay, the ancient usage amongst the Jews of 
 writing a certain fixed number of consonants in each 
 line, and of suffering none to contain either more or less 
 than the rest, would not admit of this division of the words. 
 If a series of short words had come to stand in one 
 line, the room necessary for the separation of one word 
 from another would have occupied so much space that 
 the introduction of the fixed number of consonants would 
 have been impossible.! 
 
 4. Finally is it probable that amongst the ancient 
 nations, who all of them ranged letter on to letter, the 
 Hebrews should form an exception ?? 
 
 Section 74.— Whether the Final Consonants may not be 
 Considered Word-parters. 
 
 ‘But perhaps the known “final figures” were employed 
 to mark the end of single words. Were they in use as word- 
 dividers with the Hebrews—to what purpose then a space 
 between single words? The final letter pointed out to the 
 reader how and where he should make his division.’ But 
 
 1. Are the ‘final figures’ contemporary with the oldest 
 Hebrew authors? The Talmud ὅ and Jerome * are acquainted 
 
 fore a very happy means of clearing up unintelligible passages, and of 
 restoring the proportion of the members deranged by false combi- 
 nations. 
 
 1 Tract. Menachot. c. 3, fol. 34; Morini Zxereit. Bibl. p. 445. 
 
 2 Montfaucon, Paleographia Greca, lib. i. c. 4, p. 32; Gattereci 
 Elementa Artis Diplomat. t. i. p. 52; Baringii Clavis Diplomatica, 
 p. 174. Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. § 28, mentions several Greek and 
 Latin MSS. written continua serie. 
 
 2 See Kennicotti Dissert. super Rat. Text. Hebr. i. p. 520, ii. p. 200 ff. ; 
 Dissert. Gener. p. 56, § 28, ed. Bruns., particularly under § 114. 
 
 ‘ Repert. for Bib. and East. Lit. Part iii. § 140. 
 
FINAL CONSONANTS 143 
 
 with them; they are found also on the monuments whose 
 inscriptions coincide with the birth of Christ, and are allied 
 with the square alphabet or the Palmyrenean stone-in- 
 scriptions.! Nay, they were already found in the Hebrew 
 manuscripts of the Alexandrian translators. But in the 
 Phoenician writing there is no trace of them either upon 
 mummies or coins; is it probable, then, that they were 
 in use in the most ancient times ? 
 
 2. But, granted they were as old as the oldest Hebrew 
 author, is it likely that they were then in use as final 
 letters? How insufficient to the purpose would five 
 ‘final figures’ have been, since the words occurring in the 
 Bible end with just as many consonants as are found 
 existing in the alphabet. Consequently not five but twenty- 
 two ‘final figures’ would have been necessary for this pur- 
 pose ! 
 
 3. Lastly, it is no longer conjecture but almost beyond 
 doubt, that words in the old times were not concluded by 
 final consonants, but that the office of letter-numerals was 
 filled by them when the number to be expressed was so 
 
 great as to be beyond the reach of the twenty-two con- 
 sonants. 
 
 As long as the ‘final figures’ served as letters, in order to 
 avoid mistakes, it was not usual to end words with them. 
 But after the numerals were written at length, it was a 
 natural thought to use them as final letters. 
 
 In the Hebrew MS. of the LXX, where a number 
 
 1 Biittner’s Tables of Comparison, tab. 1, n. 1, col. 1; Kennicotti 
 Dissert. General. § 28. The latest Palmyrenean inscription belongs to 
 year of Christ 263, Philosophical Transact. vol. xlviii. § 697. Respect- 
 ing the final figures of the Palmyrenean inscriptions I should like 
 more certainty than I now possess. Kennicott affirms that in the 
 Palmyrenean inscriptions no words are set apart; can they then 
 possess final figures ? 
 
144 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 was expressed by consonants, and it was so high as to 
 exceed the reach of the twenty-two usual consonants, they 
 did the office of numerals. 1 Kings v. 16, the Hebrew text 
 ‘has 300, the LXX, on the other hand, 600; Ψ 800 is ex- 
 changed for Ὁ 600. 1 Chr. xii. 35, the printed text 600, 
 but the LXX, 800; here 0 600 and ἢ 800 are trans- 
 posed. Nehem. vii. 70; the Hebrew text 580; the LXX, 
 however, have only the small number 30. It is easy to 
 imagine how the large number 500 may disappear when 
 expressed by 7 500. On the other hand, the omission of 
 MIND win is of more difficult solution. 1 Sam. xxii. 13, 
 the printed text 2 600; on the other hand, the LXX, 
 400 n. See Faber’s 2 Programmes: ‘ Literas olim pro voci- 
 bus in numerando a scriptoribus V.T. esse adhibitas (1775, 
 4). On the other hand, words were not concluded by these 
 figures in the manuscript of the LXX. Ps. xliii. 2, and 
 xliv. 5, the division of words is opposed to the final 
 syllables. See above (sec. 73). Ps. lxiv. 7, the printed 
 textVand wan, theLXX ἐξερευνωντες ἐξερευνησει according 
 to a different division YBN Dvan, Zechar. xi. 7, the printed 
 text 9 >>, the LXX as one word eis τὴν Xavaavırıv. 
 Zechar. xi. 11, the printed text "v2; the LXX 
 ot Xavavatot. See Hassencamp’s reasons against Kennicott 
 
 on 1 Sam. vi. 20 (sec. 38). 
 
 SECTION 75.—The Metrical Books also were written 
 Continua Serie. 
 
 It is not even probable that the purely metrical books 
 were at first written in verses, according to the metre; at 
 the utmost a few songs in the historical books will form 
 an exception. 
 
 1. It is agreeable to analogy. For the Greek poets 
 also did not write their odes and songs according to the 
 
WORDS NOT DIVIDED 145 
 
 number of syllables; and their present adopted division 
 into verses, both in editions and manuscripts, originates 
 with the industry of grammarians.! 
 
 2. And how without this hypothesis is the phenomenon 
 to be explained that the old translators so often give 
 expression to a reading which implies a different division 
 of the members from that in use; nay, that the Masoretical 
 division in manuscripts and editions is often entirely false 
 and opposed to the arrangement and structure of the 
 poem? If at first all songs had been written in verses, 
 it must be admitted that subsequent to the time of the 
 authors no more attention has been paid to their metrical 
 divisions, and that from that time forth these have been 
 written continuously like the prose-books. Afterwards, 
 when again word was divided from word by inter- 
 vening spaces, the members must first have suffered a false 
 division. But to what purpose all these circuitous routes 
 which are so little probable? Compare the false separa- 
 tion Ps. xlii, 6 (above, sec. 73), and Ps. xlv. 12 (below, 
 sec. 77). Ps. xxxii. 9, the division would be more correct 
 as follows: 
 
 spa pips yan bs Ne sitis instar equi mulique 
 ΓΞ Pan px qui, freno nunquam eruditus 
 oibad way 10) aut capistro ornatus ad constringendum, 
 pox 2p 5a haud cuiquam appropinquare audet.- 
 
 Psalm Ixxxvii. 1, 2 must be divided— 
 
 Mim’ 208 wap m7. INND’ 
 apy naw ban ys mye 
 See Schnurreri ‘Animadversiones in quadam loca 
 Psalmorum,’ fase. i. sec. 24, 84. 
 3. In our manuscripts and editions, whence the divi- 
 
 ! Schneider’s Experiment on Pindar. 
 
146 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 sion into verses in some songs? Why did the Jews 
 prescribe to their caligraphists to write these alone and no 
 others metrically? Is it not likely that these alone 
 received this form from their authors, and that the Jews 
 enjoined its preservation only in obedience to the apparent 
 dictate of antiquity ?! 
 
 Section 76.—When was the Continua Scriptio abolished ? 
 
 The century when the words were first separated 
 cannot, for want of information, be fixed.? Probably 
 it happened, as in Latin and Greek manuscripts, gradually ; 
 probably the empty space in the beginning extended only 
 to passages where a sentence or a section ended, but at 
 last to every word. History is silent also as to its first 
 occasion. Perhaps it arose from the custom of writing 
 only a certain number of consonants in a line; perhaps 
 from the manner in which the Old Testament was read in 
 the synagogues. 
 
 In the older manuscripts the number of consonants for 
 each line was fixed, and the rule observed through the 
 entire manuscript. But still it was not possible to put the 
 same number of consonants in every manuscript, because 
 all were not of equal breadth. If the space of a new manu- 
 script were too small to contain as many consonants in a 
 line as that from which a copy was being made, perhaps as 
 an index of the number of consonants in the codex used as 
 
 1 Massechet Sopherim. Yet even here at times mistakes have occurred, 
 which for the sake of impartiality I cannot pass over. For instance, 
 Judges v. 13, 7M’ Dy, evidently according to the LXX and parallelism 
 belongs to the second member. But such instances are for the most 
 part oversights of the MS. from whence our vulgar text is derived. 
 This is also the case here according to the Halle Bible. 
 
 2 Tychsen, Zent. p. 140, maintains that as early as David’s time 
 word-divisions must have been in use because the alphabetical songs 
 suppose separate words; the ground of which I cannot perceive. 
 
WORDS DIVIDED 147 
 
 exemplar an empty space was left where in the latter the 
 lines ended. Or perhaps the number of consonants in a 
 principal manuscript was preserved in the copies made 
 from it, in somewhat the same manner as, after the fifth 
 century, was the use with regard to the division of the 
 New Testament introduced by Euthalius.! 
 
 Or possibly, in the manuscripts destined for public use, 
 a space might have been left where the reader was to 
 stop and the interpreter with his explanation of the pre- 
 vious reading to follow.? 
 
 Enough that about the birth of Christ the division of 
 words in manuscripts was not yet general, much less was 
 it extended to every word ; for the old authors of versions 
 after the birth of Christ vary in numberless instances 
 from the present accepted divisions of words. 
 
 In the above-quoted instances (sec. 73) ; the Syrian and 
 Chaldean, Hos. v. 5; Syr.and Chald., Ps. xliii. 2 ; the Syrian, 
 Ps. xliv. 5. Is. xvi. 8, the printed text, nio1w, Theodotion 
 ἀγροι θανατου, that is nyo "ἼΦ. Is. Ixiv. 1, the printed text 
 Ὁ ΘΠ, Symmachus éraxyn ἡ θαλασσα, that is Ὦ" pon. Ps. xlviii. 
 15, the printed text min by, the Chaldean (with LXX and 
 the Vulgate), ning, &c. 
 
 Still traces of divided words are to be fonnd in the 
 Hebrew manuscript used by Jerome: ‘Cur autem,’ he writes 
 on Zech. xi. 11, ‘pro eo, quod nos interpretati sumus 
 sic pauperes illi (the LXX) dixerunt Chananzos, causa 
 manifesta est. Apud Hebrezeos enim sic Chen dicitur ; 
 Anie pauperes ; illi duo verba in unum copulantes, pro eo, 
 quod est sic pauperes, hoc est Chen Anie, nomen Chan- 
 ane gentis interpretati sunt.’ The ‘duo verba’ with 
 Jerome must be declared forced if he were not able to 
 
 1 Michaelis’ Introduction to the N. T. § 753, 3rd edit. 
 
 2 Morini Hrercitationes Biblice, p. 444 f. 
 Ι, 2 
 
148 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 refer to any divided words at all in his manuscript. See 
 Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah xxxiii. 7. 
 
 And if, already in the first centuries after Christ, a 
 commencement here and there in the division of words 
 was made, the cause becomes also manifest why modern 
 translators of the Bible take part with our Masoretical 
 word-division where it is left by the elder. 
 
 Of the Syrian and Chaldean this is undeniable, if the ex- 
 amples be only considered which were collected (sec. 73 £.), by 
 no means with the purpose of proving this point. Jeremiah 
 xxill. 33, the expression in both as opposed to the LXX is 
 nwo mi ms; Ps. xlii. 2, Chaldean and Syrian agree with our 
 printed text ; Ps. xliv. 5, the Chaldean sides with the printed 
 text against the LX X and the Syrian. 
 
 Progress in this work was made from century to 
 century, for it was found very convenient not to be obliged 
 to have to divide the words of a dead language whilst it was 
 being read. Between the sixth and the tenth centuries, 
 when the present system of punctuation and accenting 
 was introduced, this laborious task must have been fully 
 accomplished, since accents in their present designation 
 and divided words are inseparably connected. 
 
 Section 77.—-8. Division into Verses. 
 
 If Moses and the Prophets had surrounded their text 
 with Athnakh and Silluk, together with its companion 
 Soph Pasuk, and the whole series of accents, it might 
 naturally follow that their books were already divided by 
 them into the small portions which we call verses, 
 opypp- But our accents in their present application, and 
 probably also as to their number, can scarcely be quite a 
 thousand years old (sec. 71) ; consequently our distribution 
 into verses, since that depends on them, bears the same date. 
 
DIVISION INTO VERSES 149 
 
 1. Generally speaking, it is so unnatural to cut upa 
 writing, particularly a prose-composition, into such small 
 portions as verses are, that amongst the many singular 
 minds in the author-class of all known times and people, no 
 one has yet been found strange enough to cut up his own 
 writings in such a manner. 
 
 2. The ancient Bible-translators were not in possession 
 of a text with a division into words, much less into verses ; 
 they vary much from our verse-division, not merely where 
 the interpretation is concerned, but even also where our 
 verse-distribution is the result of a superior hermeneutical 
 tact. Thus, for instance, the LXX, Ps. xlv., join the 
 11th and 12th verses καὶ προσκυνησουσιν αὐτῳ θυγατερες 
 Tvpov, and spoil the fine passage of the original. 
 
 3. And if our distribution into verses originated with the 
 authors, the possibility of the introduction of divisions in 
 numberless instances entirely false and militating against 
 all sense would be incomprehensible. 
 
 See the above-cited passages, Ps. xlii. 6 (sec. 73), Ps. 
 Ixxxvii. 1, 2 (sec. 75). Ps. lv. 16, DI%P2 belongs to verse 17. 
 Obad. 9, yp, with the LXX, Vulg., Arabian, and Syrian, 
 should be carried on to the 10th verse. Esther ix., verses 16 
 and 17 should have been divided, by which the sense is only 
 rendered more difficult. 
 
 4. In Jerome and the Talmud no traces of verses are 
 visible. 
 
 Jerome, however, divided the Latin translation into 
 cola and verses; not, however, because the Hebrew text 
 gave occasion thereto, but from mere imitation of a like 
 division in Greek and Latin manuscripts. The Greeks 
 and Romans, in order to be able to calculate the extent of 
 a writing, were in the habit of writing their authors by the 
 line and of fixing a certain number of words to each line. 
 
150 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 This custom was followed by Jerome, as he himself can- 
 didly says in his preface to Isaiah : ‘Nemo cum prophetas 
 versibus viderit descriptos, metro eos existimet ab Hebrais 
 ligari, et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis et operibus 
 Salomonis ; sed quod in Demosthene et in Tullio fieri solet 
 ut per cola scribantur et commata qui utrique prosa et 
 non versibus scripserunt: nos quoque utilitati legentium 
 providentes interpretationem novam, novo scribendi genere 
 distinximus. ! 
 
 The Talmud also understands by verses, D’P1DB, and by 
 lines, MOY or }'%0’%, merely such lines as I have just 
 described from Jerome ; hence the number of verses in the 
 Talmud does not agree with that in the Masora; and 
 although some verses cited in the treatise Sopherim may 
 commence as ours at present in the Masoretical division, 
 this does not affect my supposition. For the quoted verses 
 are just of the kind with which Parashen begin.? 
 
 5. Finally, perhaps also the Jewish expression that 
 formerly the whole law was one verse means that at that 
 time no division existed in the Book of the Law. 
 
 In short, our division into verses is contemporary with 
 our present accentuation.? 
 
 1 The passages quoted in the Repertory for Bibl. and Eastern Lit. 
 Part iii. § 140, seem to me to show the contrary. 
 
 2 Morini Evercitat. Bibl. pp. 442, 455. 
 
 $ Still a notice is wanting to show how the indication of the verse 
 by ciphers was gradually introduced into the editions of the ©. T. The 
 Bomberg editions (whether all, however, I know not) are said already 
 to mark by number the recurrence of the fifth and tenth verses. Accord- 
 ing to De Rossi, the Sabbionetan Pentateuch, of the year 1557, must 
 have been the first, or one of the first, editions in which the fifth verse is 
 always marked by its number (Annali Ebreo-tiprografiei di Sabbioneta, 
 p. 23). Athias’ edition with Leusden’s preface (Amsterd. 1661) is said 
 to have been the first in which all the verses were numbered with their 
 proper ciphers. 
 
DIVISION INTO SECTIONS 151 
 
 SECTION 78.—9. Parashen. 
 
 After the Babylonian captivity synagogues were every- 
 where established, in which portions from the Books of 
 Moses were required to be publicly read (Nehemiah viii., 
 Acts of the Apostles xv. 21). This institution gave the 
 first occasion to the division of the Books of Moses into 
 fifty-four sections, called Parashen (nywnp), because in a 
 leap year there are fifty-four Sabbaths. 
 
 The end of the preceding and the commencement of 
 the following Parash was marked by leaving in the manu- 
 scripts (it is not known how long before the Talmud) a 
 vacant space. If the remaining space of the line, in which 
 the preceding Parash was closed, was left empty, and the 
 following began in a new line, the Parash begun in the 
 mode described was called an opened, 371N5, and this was 
 shown in the space left empty by a 5, wherefore also in 
 manuscripts nmnD will be found written in small letters 
 on the margin. But if upon the same line in which the 
 preceding Parash ended further writing after a small in- 
 terval took place, the new Parash was called a close, 71ND, 
 and ἃ Ὁ was placed in the vacant space, on which account 
 in numerous places in the margin of manuscripts the entire 
 word will be found written in small characters. 
 
 Such a portion, which was read entirely on a Sabbath, 
 was termed a great or Sabbath Parash ; separate parts of 
 the same, consisting often of only a few verses, were 
 named smaller Parashen, and these were again divided, in 
 the significations above given, into open and shut. 
 
 SECTION 79.—10. Haphtharen. 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, out of an impolitic zeal for 
 reform, forbade the Jews to read the writings of Moses 
 publicly in their synagogues. Now in order to avoid 
 
152 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 acting in opposition to this command, and at the same 
 time to prevent their sacred books from being forcibly 
 banished from their public assemblies, they began to read 
 the Prophets in their synagogues. When afterwards the 
 obligation to obey this intolerant edict ceased, they joined, 
 in their Sabbath meetings, the exposition of the Law to 
 that of the Prophets (Acts of the Apostles xiii. 15-27). 
 
 Since which time the Prophets have been also divided 
 into portions, called Haphtharen (ΠῚ 25Π). When the 
 Haphtharen were legally fixed is not known, probably 
 already before the birth of Christ; Luke iv. 17, where 
 Christ takes a passage from the Prophets, which He wishes 
 to expound, proves nothing, because His explanation was 
 an extraordinary one. 
 
 SECTION 80 a.—11. Division into Chapters. 
 
 Our division into chapters is also recent, and originates 
 with Hugo di San Caro in the twelfth century, whose 
 ‘ Biblia cum Postilla’ was the first Bible with chapters. 
 Daniel Bomberg adopted them first in his edition of the 
 Hebrew Bible,! and took the Vulgate entirely as his guide 
 in the matter.” 
 
 Before the introduction of chapters, great difficulties 
 occurred with regard to citations; and in order to avoid 
 quotations of so vague a nature as those of the Greeks 
 and Romans, reference was made to whole sections by a 
 
 1 Elias Levita in Pref. ad Massoreth Hammassoreth. 
 
 2 In MSS. which had been in the hands of Christians, chapters are 
 sometimes noted (Lilienthal, De Codd. Regiom. p. 67). Something 
 similar to our chapter-division—certain sections, distinguished perhaps 
 by the interval of avacant space—was found by Jerome. They seldom, 
 however, coincide with our distribution of chapters. Jerome, on 
 Micah vi. 9, says: ‘In Hebraicis alterius hoc capituli exordium est, 
 apud LXX vero finis superioris.’ 
 
DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS 153 
 
 leading word, or by a summary of contents.! In this 
 manner quotations are made by Philo, the New Testament, 
 and the Rabbins. Instead of 1 Book Moses iii. Philo 
 says, ‘The Law in the Cursings,’ and the New Testament 
 cites 2 Book Moses 111. by the expression, ‘in the Thorn- 
 bush.’ ? 
 
 Since our division into chapters has not the authority 
 of antiquity in its favour, it is abandoned by the exposi- 
 tor as often as his tact in translation requires. 
 
 Hos. vi. 11, merely the chapter division has prevented the 
 translators from penetrating into the sense of the prophet. 
 Place the first half of the 11th verse, ἣν: sp ny ATA D, 
 to the 10th verse ; with the second half begin the 7th chapter, 
 as the position of the words, the relation of the members, 
 and facility of interpretation require. See further Isaiah ii. 
 22; compare 1xiii. 19 with Ixiv. 1; Daniel ii. 31-33 with 
 iv. 1 ff.; Ecclesiastes viii. 1 compare with vii. 29; iv. 17 
 with v. 1. Our own editions differ already from one another 
 in the division of chapters ; with Is. xlvi. 12 the Plautinian 
 edition begins a new chapter ; also Joel iii., and elsewhere, 
 the editions are different. 
 
 SECTION 80 B.— 12. Division into Books. 
 
 Finally not even the now universally received division 
 into books is contemporary with the collection of the 
 canon; nor till the sixteenth century, with regard to the 
 Hebrew text, was it fully completed. According to the 
 express testimony of Origen (sec. 53) and Jerome (sec. 55), 
 
 ! In this manner the books of Samuel appear to be quoted, 
 1 Chron. xxix. 29. See § 470. 
 
 2 Philo, De Agricultura, Opp. t. i.p. 316 ed. Mang., p. 203 ed. Francf. : 
 Aeyeı yap (vouos) ἐν tats ἄραι. The N.T. Mark xii. 26, compare 
 2 B. Moses iii.; Romans xi. 2; Romans iv. 18, compare 1 B. Moses, 
 xv. 5. So speaks Abn Ezra on Hos. iv. 18: ‘It is written in Eli;’ 
 and Raschi on Hos. ix. 19: ‘It is Gibeon in the Concubine.’ 
 
154 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the two Books of Samuel, the two of Kings, the two of 
 Chronicles, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah, were not divided 
 by the Jews in their time; also the later Jews to the most 
 recent times have written the above books in their manu- 
 scripts close together without leaving any space between. 
 And probably many other books, which are now separated, 
 were formerly undivided. There was, indeed, a time 
 when the twelve lesser Prophets, Judges and Ruth, and 
 many other books were spoken of as a single work, in 
 like manner as Ezra and Nehemiah are mentioned as one 
 book, the two Books of Samuel as one, and also those of 
 Chronicles and Kings; were they not written as closely 
 and continuously together as the supplement to the Book 
 of Judges in the last five chapters is at present ? 
 
 Be the matter as it may, in early times our pre- 
 sent division was introduced into the Alexandrian version, 
 which was followed by the Vulgate; and Daniel Bomberg 
 distributed the books united (before his time) in the 
 manuscripts and editions of the Hebrew text, in his edition 
 of the Vulgate in the manner in which they are now 
 printed in all editions. 
 
 SECOND PART.—HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 SECTION 81.— External Circumstances of the Autographs. 
 
 The autographs, or, if these were never extant, because 
 either the authors dictated or never collected their works, 
 the original copies of the writings of the Old Testament 
 in the time before the Babylonian captivity were, if not all, 
 at least a part of them, written on linen (sec. 63), in 
 Phenico-Egyptian characters (sec. 64), with vowel-marks 
 applied here and there (sec. 68), without diacritical points 
 (sec. 72), and word joined to word (sec. 73). Accents 
 
AUTOGRAPH OR COPY 155 
 
 were added not to all the books but to songs only which 
 ‚were set to music (sec. 71); the text also was not 
 divided into chapters (sec. 80), verses (sec. 77), Parashen 
 (sec. 78), nor Haphtharen. 
 
 SECTION 82.—Internal Shape of the Autographs. 
 1. Double Editions from the Authors themselves. 
 
 Of some parts of the Old Testament a second recension 
 was executed by the authors themselves, or a second 
 edition revised from beginning to end and here and there 
 altered. We possess also still both revisions of some in 
 the original language; of others one in the original 
 and the other in a translation. Besides these still more 
 may have been extant in repeated and altered editions, 
 only in this case one of the two has become the prey of 
 time. 
 
 Two editions of the same song have been preserved in the 
 14th and 53rd Psalm in the original language ; and the second 
 edition of the Prophecies of Jeremiah in the Alexandrian 
 version (‘ Repertory for Bibl. and Eastern Lit.’ Pt. i. sec. 141). 
 Indeed more than two editions of many pieces of the Old 
 Testament must have been formerly extant, as, for instance, 
 of the 18th Psalm, sung by David after a victory as a song of 
 triumph, and in which passages occur of which David, in his 
 triumph over Saul, could not possibly have been the author. 
 But here and in the parallel instance, 2 Sam. xxii., only one 
 of the many editions forms the ground-work, enriched with 
 readings and additions suggested to the muse of the poet by 
 different adaptations of the Psalm on the occasion of new 
 victories. The union of the various editions is, however, so 
 complete as to exceed the powers of any critical genius, how- 
 ever happy, to separate them again from each other. 
 
 In the cases described many autographa or original 
 copies existed, which in the details were different from 
 
156 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 one another—which constitutes the essence of a new 
 edition. Words were exchanged, more polished expres- 
 sions selected, additions inserted, &e. 
 
 For instance, the difference of the two editions of the 
 same song, Ps. xiv. and liii., consists in the following 
 particulars :—1. Words are exchanged. Of God, Ps. xiv., 
 2, 4, 7, uses the expression 717’; Ps. lii., in the parallel 
 passages, pbs. 2. More select phrases are used Ps. 1Π|. 
 (probably the 2nd edit.). Ps. xiv. 1, πον, for which 
 Ps. liii. 2 has the more precise 5. Ps. xiv. 3, the 
 usual 1D; Ps. liii. 4, the more rare 30. Ps. xiv. 3, an, 
 for which Ps. liii. 4, 192, which appears to have afforded 
 more satisfaction to the ear. 3. Quite different expres- 
 sions are found Ps. xiv. 4, compared with Ps. 111. 6. 
 For the illustration of the proceeding in a new edition of 
 an old work, the double lives of David and Solomon in the 
 books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles may be used 
 (sec. 468, 480). The results of such a comparison are 
 remarkable. 
 
 SECTION 83.—2. Repetition of Single Passages by 
 later Authors. 
 
 It was also not unusual in later times to make a new 
 literary use of old writings. Single passages, for instance, 
 were taken from the works of many poets differing from 
 one another, and new poems composed out of the same. 
 The Prophets of later times, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, 
 compiled many prophecies from the works of earlier 
 Prophets. In this, however, they did not proceed like 
 slavish copyists; they made omissions, additions, and 
 exercised a choice as to readings which were more 
 poetical, suitable to their genius or to the immediate 
 occasion. Let a comparison be made of Ps. cviii., which 
 
FAULTS IN MANUSCRIPTS 157 
 
 is composed of Ps. lvii. 8-12, and Ix. 7-14. Let 
 Jer. xlviii. be compared with Is. xv., xvi; Jer. xlix. 7-17 
 with Obadiah. Of the alterations allowed to themselves 
 by authors in these repetitions, a sufficient idea may be 
 obtained by a comparison of the cited passages. For 
 proof of which, just one example. The style of Obadiah 
 is fierce and fiery; his thoughts are all clothed in ques- 
 tions and exclamation, and he jumps from one person 
 to another. All this was opposed to the character of 
 Jeremiah. Hence when he brings the former forwards 
 and retains his words, in one case he omits the interro- 
 gatory form (Jerem. xlix.9; Obad. 5), in another the 
 exclamatory (Jerem. xlix. 10; Obad. 6), avoids the tran- 
 sitions from one person to another (Jer. xlix. 16; Obad. 3), 
 and reduces into a small compass the varied representa- 
 
 tions of Obadiah. 
 
 SECTION 84.—The Manuscripts were not Free from 
 Faults. Fürst Source of Faults. 
 
 Some of the faults of our present Hebrew texts are 
 older than any aids still extant applicable to the critical 
 elaboration of the Old Testament, and are in all proba- 
 bility derived entirely, in part certainly,! from the 
 original exemplars. 
 
 The faults which affect merely single consonants have 
 
 1 Let no one take umbrage at the word ‘certainly.’ In the passage 
 below occurring, taken out of Amos, one only ot two things is possible: 
 either Amos made a mistake in writing, or the errors are derived from 
 the first copy of his autograph, which have been since propagated in all 
 subsequent copies. Is it not, however, much more probable that a 
 man entirely destitute of learning, as Amos was, should commit ortho- 
 graphical mistakes, betrayed thereto by his ear, than a copyist, ex- 
 pert in the art or writing, in virtue of his calling, and so conscientious 
 as sooner to imitate three faults in his original MS. than to make one 
 new one? 
 
158 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 often arisen from the circumstance that writing took 
 place by the ear without any fixed rules of orthography. 
 If the author dictated (as Jeremiah to his Baruch), how 
 easily the scribe might mishear ; ! and even if the author 
 revised the copy, how easily he might overlook the error, 
 able only to be discovered by a person versed in the art of 
 writing and orthography, which perhaps he was not! But 
 even if the author wrote himself, orthography might be 
 no familiar matter with him; he wrote, then, merely by the 
 ear, unorthographically, or to speak more learnedly, his 
 writing was anomalous. Such orthographical mistakes 
 may, however, be laid to the charge of the later copyists. 
 But if in one book many faults of the kind are found, and 
 in another very few or almost none at all, is it then still 
 likely that the clerk 15 the real offender? Why did he 
 commit such oversights in one author, and in another so 
 few or scarcely any? Why is no trace to be found with 
 the Masorites that in such passages the manuscripts were 
 different? Have all scribes erred in these passages, and 
 exactly in the same manner ? 
 
 On the other hand, much more natural and easy is the 
 solution of this problem if the faults be referred to the 
 original exemplar ; the copy of one book was written in a 
 more orthographical manner than that of another. 
 
 Concerning the variations of Hebrew orthography in 
 ancient times, no remarks occur in Teller’s ‘ Dissert. de Judicio 
 super variis Lectionibus Codicis Hebrei recte faciendo,’ sec. 8 
 in his ‘Opuscula,’ pp. 33, 40, The Prophet Amos affords 
 many instances of incorrectly written words, which in all 
 probability are to be derived from the original copy. 1 
 will excerpt only the four last chapters in proof of this. 
 
 1 Perhaps 1 Thess. ii. 8, duetpouevor (which still seems to be the 
 oldest reading) may be explained this way, unless it be a fault inspeech 
 of the Apostle instead of the more correct ἱμειρομενοι. 
 
 — Ν en 
 
FAULTS IN MANUSCRIPTS 159 
 
 Amos v. 11, DIDI instead of D3DD12, where the false ortho- 
 graphy has misled all the ancient translators to conjecturing ; 
 vi. 8, ANN) instead of IyNd,a complete Ephraimism (sec. 97) ; 
 vii 9, pnt instead of pny’. The LXX, by means of the 
 orthographical errors, were already misled to translate 
 prev nina by βωμοι του yeAwros, the Vulgate by ‘ excelsa idoli 
 (ridiculi quid),’ and the Syrian by aQss0 lo; ‘fana risus 
 (ridicula) ;’ vii. 16, pnw again, for pn¥’, compare Ps. cvii. 8, 
 Jer. xxxiii. 26 ; viii. 4, may? according to the ear, for mavind, 
 compare 2 Kings ix. 15, the Keri and Chetiv. So, perhaps, 
 ’Iovda was written instead of ’Iovra, by the ear, Luke i. 39, 
 
 SECTION 85.—Second Source of Faults in the Manuscripts. 
 
 If a writing in the first instance, either entirely or 
 in part, was written down from the mouths of the 
 people—which perhaps was the case with regard to many 
 Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, which were collected in 
 Hezekiah’s time, and the additional maxims joined on to 
 the Book of Proverbs in the two last chapters—how im- 
 possible was it to reduce them to writing without an 
 admixture of false, though perhaps neither senseless read- 
 ings nor such as changed the sense! ΤῸ prove all this by 
 examples free from all objections is indeed just as im- 
 practicable as to bring back the ancient primitive text 
 again; the reading, then, where not without meaning, 
 must have been unequal to the spirit of the author. In 
 this case it is still competent to the acuteness of the 
 higher criticism to discover the faulty passages and to 
 restore them, at least so far as to be suitable to the spirit 
 of the author. Therefore we are compelled to rest 
 satisfied with general considerations. 
 
 Many Psalms, not merely the more ancient, but also 
 the more modern, not merely the dark and difficult, but 
 
160 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 also the easy and intelligible, contain the most manifest 
 errors in considerable number, for which there is no aid, 
 either in old versions, manuscripts, or other critical 
 authorities. On the other hand, by their side are placed 
 old primitive songs, which either require no corrections at 
 all, or, if they seem to require such, may easily be amended 
 from critical sources still extant; others, finally, havecome 
 down to our time with a text so correct as to excite astonish- 
 ment, as for instance, the certainly by no means modern 
 Psalm cxix., which by its length and the sameness of its 
 176 sentences might have wearied the industry of the 
 most patient copyist, and yet bears scarcely any traces of 
 its high antiquity. Is it, then, probable that the Jewish 
 copiers, who have given elsewhere such singular proofs of 
 untiring industry, and even all of them, should be so 
 remarkably negligent in the same passages? Must not the 
 Psalms which contain such perplexing passages originate 
 from the exemplar which is the source of our present 
 Psalter ? and since with regard to other Psalms this source 
 runs so pure, must not the faulty songs flow from a 
 troubled spring which runs into the former? and under 
 these circumstances, is it too bold a hypothesis to suppose 
 that they were taken down from the mouths of the people 
 at a time when it was no longer possible to correct the 
 half-accurate passages, where memory was at fault, and 
 either nothing more was desired or the mind was forced 
 to rest satisfied with what was imperfect ? 
 
 SEcTION 86.—Third Source of Faults in the Autographs. 
 
 Finally at times when old matter had been cast into new 
 form by authors, or had undergone the process of epitome, 
 this was not done without orthographical failures. This 
 may be shown to the highest grade of probability in some 
 passages of the Old Testament. 
 
FATE OF MANUSCRIPTS 161 
 
 To bring forward many examples, of which this has not 
 elsewhere been proved, would occasion too wide a digression. 
 Only afew then. The author of the information respecting the 
 Noachian Deluge, 1 Book Moses vi.-ix., who from two ac- 
 counts has formed one narrative, must in writing down the 
 passage 1 Book Moses vii. 9 have committed an oversight— 
 compare 16. See ‘Repertory for Bibl. and East. Lit.,’ 
 Part v. sec, 209. A similar oversight was detected by the 
 deceased Professor Vogel, 1 Chron. i. 17 ff. In this pedigree, 
 he says, there lies a double mistake of the author of the Books 
 of Chronicles. First he declares the following as sons of 
 Shem :—Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Haul, 
 Gether, and Meshech,! although the four last are not the 
 sons of Shem but his grandsons through Aram; then he 
 mentions Arphaxad’s son Shelah ; Shelah’s son Eber ; then 
 Eber’s sons Peleg and Joktan. Verses 20-23, he names 
 Joktan’s sons as they are given 1 Book Moses x. 26-29. 
 Afterwards when he is about to enumerate Peleg’s posterity, 
 instead of joining this pedigree to the preceding by means of the 
 words 255 33) ‘ Peleg’s posterity were,’ he goes back again to the 
 commencement and names all the ancestors of Peleg from 
 Shem. The author, that is to say, has merely copied the genea- 
 logies as they stand 1 Book Moses x.-xi., and merely because in 
 the 11th chapter the line of Peleg recommences from Shem 
 and his descendants the ancestors of Peleg ; in like manner, 
 after having written off ch. x. 21-29, he has immediately copied 
 on to it from chap. xi. 10-26 the descendants of Shem through 
 Peleg. But see sec. 490. 
 
 Section 87.—Destruction of the Original Manuscripts. 
 
 How and when the autographs perished no one knows. 
 For what is said of them by the Church Fathers, as to 
 being burnt in the Temple, is a false conjecture (sec. 3). 
 
 1. It is possible that before the Babylonian captivity, 
 the autographs of many authors were lost. For at that 
 
 ! Another possible representation, see § 490. 
 M 
 
162 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 time, as in all antiquity, for want of critical eyes, small 
 attention was paid to autographs, as evidently appears 
 from the literary history of that of Moses, which, although 
 as the Book of the Law of double importance, neverthe- 
 less for a long time lay hid in a corner, till an accident 
 rescued it from oblivion (2 Kings xxu. 8, 2 Chroni- 
 cles xxxiv. 14). And who can say whether the material 
 for manuscripts used in the oldest times was of a texture 
 fitted for long duration? In the times of Pliny a codex 
 with moderate use lasted at the very longest 200 years— 
 in remote antiquity, most probably a still shorter time, for 
 the ability to select a sufficiently durable material for 
 writing, or one on which the writing itself could take 
 place, did not then exist. 
 
 2. The early destruction of the manuscripts, at least of 
 some books, was a matter of necessity. If an ancient 
 writing underwent revision at a very early period and 
 became the basis of a new work enlarged by means of 
 insertions and additions, would it not be natural after 
 such alteration to prefer the richer and more perfect work 
 to the meagre and shorter one, and to leave the defective 
 original to decay? If, however, the ancient Hebrew 
 books from the times before the captivity were preserved 
 merely in private hands (as above seemed to be probable) 
 and were not rescued from the first Temple library, it 
 follows that with regard to the greatest part of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, the autographs, at least, perished at the com- 
 mencement of the captivity. 
 
 And the manuscripts which survived the captivity must 
 have perished scon after that event. Thereafter the Jews 
 established a library of their sacred books and transcribed 
 them out of the old character in use before the captivity 
 into a modern one derived from the former (sec. 67). After 
 this change is it likely that the autographs, written in a 
 
FATE OF MANUSCRIPTS 163 
 
 character which, in a hundred years after probably, became 
 generally illegible, in an age when ideas of the critical use 
 of such manuscripts did not exist, should still be held in 
 estimation ? They were but little esteemed at first, and 
 subsequently were quite forgotten. And even if in the first 
 instance they have been objects of regard, age would still 
 have rendered them useless—the character would have 
 suffered spontaneous extinction. 
 
 SECTION 88.— New Transcript after the Captivity. 
 Temple Copy. 
 
 After the Babylonian captivity all the sacred books pre- 
 viously composed by the Hebrews were copied anew and, 
 together with others, placed in a library in the Temple 
 (sec. 5, 15, 39). Whether Daniel and Hzra,. Haggai, 
 Zechariah, and Malachi, and Nehemiah and Esther were 
 laid there in the original manuscripts of their authors, 
 there are no materials either for affirming or denying. 
 
 SECTION 89.—Character of this Temple Copy Internal 
 and External. 
 
 1. It was not Free from Faults. 
 
 Of the external character of this copy, the representa- 
 tions which appeared to me most probable have’ been 
 stated above (Chap. II. sec. 1). 
 
 With regard to its text, if the remarks above adduced 
 (sec. 84-87) be well founded, false readings must already 
 at that time have crept into many passages, whether the 
 autographs themselves, or copies made from them, were 
 placed in the Temple library. 
 
 Various readings also must have existed in the books, 
 which were previously extant in numerous copies, unless 
 
 M 2 
 
164 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the hands of the caligraphists had been guided miracu- 
 lously. But these two kinds of readings were not noted in 
 the Temple copy. The first, if they disturbed not the text, 
 it was not within the competency of a person uninstructed 
 from above to remark; and if the stamp of falseness 
 appeared not evidently on their face, only the finest criti- 
 cism was equal to their perception, neither of which was to 
 be expected from the compiler and second editor after 
 the Babylonian captivity. 
 
 The last, the various readings, were easy to be dis- 
 covered if the existing copies were but collated. But in 
 the old world verbal criticism did not exist, because at that 
 time interpretation by grammatical rules was unknown; 
 and least of all was it to be sought amongst the Jews, 
 among whom, before the birth of Christ, not a spark of 
 criticism had appeared. Of all the readings then afforded 
 by the Masora, and in our manuscripts placed on the 
 margin, not a trace was doubtless to be found in the 
 genuine Temple copy. 
 
 Section 90.—2. The Temple Copy was written with 
 Abbreviations. Numeral Letters instead of Words. 
 
 The question whether in this new copy abbreviations 
 were used may with great probability be answered in the 
 affirmative, if, from the nature of the exemplar used by the 
 Alexandrians in their version of the Bible, we dare refer 
 to the latter and reckon numeral letters put for numeral 
 words amongst abbreviations. 
 
 The employment by the authors of the Old Testament, 
 who wrote with Phcenico-Egyptian letters, of a kind of 
 ciphers, when numbers were to be expressed, is possible, 
 since Count Caylus affirms his discovery of ciphers on 
 mummies, which were written closely all over in this 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 165 
 
 character." And in this case it was also natural, in the 
 new copy made after the Babylonian captivity, to express 
 numbers not with words, but, having regard to the cha- 
 racter of the original exemplar, by ciphers, or in their 
 deficiency by numeral letters.” 
 
 Now the passages of the Old Testament in which num- 
 bers occur are frequently subject to grave doubts. Fre- 
 quently the number given exceeds all belief of the rational 
 thinker ; but if that be not the case, still the numbers in 
 parallel passages are often contradictory, or a great differ- 
 ence is found between the numbers of the original text 
 and those of the oldest Bible interpreters, the LXX. 
 
 According to 1 Chron. xxii. 14 David appoints from his 
 poverty (y:9y3) only one hundred thousand talents of gold and 
 a million talents of silver ; and according to 1 Chron. xxix. 3, 4, 
 he has saved a treasure of 3,000 talents of the gold of Ophir 
 and 7,000 talents of refined silver for the purpose of incrust- 
 ing the walls of the Temple, and this at a time when gold and 
 silver from America were not in circulation! Jehoram dies 
 in his fortieth year, and his son, a prince of forty-two years, 
 succeeds to his throne—compare 2 Chron. xxi. 20, and xxii. 2 
 Other passages of the sort are 2 Chron. xvii. 14 ff: 
 2 Sam. viii. compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 4 ; 1 Kings iv. 26 
 
 1 Mémoires de Trevouz, A. 1740 in März, Artic. xxi.; Lettre a M. 
 Rigord, Commissaire de la Marine, where a plate of such a mummy is 
 given; Count Caylus, Recueil d’Antiquites Egypt. &c. t. 1. pp.-65-76, 
 tab. xxi.-xxvi. ; Gattereri Hlementa Artis Diplomat. t.i. p. 71 ff. 
 
 2 On the Samaritan coins with the names of Jonathan and Simon, 
 numeral letters are already found, e.g.. 9 man) byson won yn. 
 ‘Jonathan the high priest, and those joined with him. Two’ (in the 
 second year). Swinton, De Numeris Samarit. pp. 67-72. Mémoires de 
 V Acad. des Inscriptions, t. xxiv. pp. 52, 61. Upon another coin pub- 
 lished by Bayer with the name of Simon, stand J%, i.e. in the second 
 year. Kennicotti Diss. gener. § 27, on which passage Bruns remarks 
 further that on an old Syrian MS. written in Estranghelo on parchment, 
 and which belongs to the Barberini Library, Judges xviii. 17, the 
 number 5 is expressed by 7 man = 5 men. 
 
166 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 compared with 2 Chron. ix. 25. See Kennicott ‘Super Ratione 
 Textus Hebr. Dissert.’ i. p. 523; ü. 189, 201. Similar 
 phenomena in the chronology of the Bible are remarked in 
 the ‘ Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Hamb. 1670; Dan. 
 Heinsii ‘Operum Historicorum Collectio,’ i. ed. 2, Lugd. 
 Bat. p. 168 f. ; Langen’s ‘ Dialogue between a Courtier and a 
 Priest’ by Cramer (Copenh. 1768. 8). 
 
 These statements are in most cases inexplicable from 
 numeral words written at large; on the other hand, their 
 causes become evident if recourse be had to numeral letters. 
 In short, this hypothesis will endure the proof by which 
 the probability of every hypothesis is tested; it solves all 
 difficulties and is open to no objections. 
 
 1. It clears up contradictions in single passages. 
 
 According to 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, there should come to pass a 
 famine of seven (yIW) years ; according to the LXX in this 
 passage, as well as the Hebrew text 1 Chron. xxi. 12, a famine 
 of three (yybw) years. A change of verbal numerals here is 
 not to be imagined, but only one of the numeral letters 3, 3, 
 and t, 7. 1 Kings xii. 21, Rehoboam gathers 180,000 men 
 according to the Hebrew text, according to the LX X 120,000. 
 The numeral expressions ὩΣ 80, and ὩΣ 20 are not, it is 
 true, permuted, but 5 indeed=80 and 5 20. 1 Kings ix. 28, 
 after the Hebrew text, Solomon’s fleet brings back from Ophir 
 420 talents of gold, but according to the LXX 120 talents. 
 Not AND and MIND yas, but p 100 and n 400 are changed 
 1 Sam. ix. 22, Hebr. nwhw 30; the LXX and Josephus 
 (Antig. vii. 4. 1) Diyaw 70; here 5 30 is changed for y 70. 
 1 Sam. xi. 8, and 2 Sam. vi. 1, the printed Hebrew text has 
 both times nwbw 30, the LXX both times nya 70: here, 
 again, Ὁ 30 and v 70 have been interchanged. 1 Sam. iv. 18 
 compared with the LX X, Sand Ὁ ; Ezra ii. 28 compared with 
 the LXX, n and 4; 1 Sam. iv. 15 Yand y, comp. with the LX X 
 are interchanged. Still further passages of the kind are to be 
 found by collating the LXX with 1 Kings vii. 21-23, vi. 1 ; 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 167 
 
 Nehem. vii. 33 ; 1 Kings x. 26 ; 1 Sam. viii. 4 ; 2 Sam. vi. 13 ; 
 1 Chron. xv. 6 ; 2 Kings vi. 25; 1 Sam. xxiii. 13, xvii. 4; 
 Nehem. vii. 34; 1 Kings xvi. 29, v. 16, x. 16; 1 Sam. xi. 8, 
 xv. 4; 1 Chron. xii. 36 ; Esth. ix. 15. 
 
 2. Supposing the numbers to have been written in 
 numeral letters it is also conceivable why so many numbers 
 have suffered or been lost altogether. The numeral letters 
 in these cases were similar to each other in the manuscripts, 
 or crouched beneath their larger neighbours, with their 
 little figures. 
 
 pwbr 30, ova 70 are so little alike and yet so often 
 changed for one another, as 1 Sam. ix. 22, xi. 8; 2Sam. vi.1 ; 
 y 70 and 5 30 in manuscripts are often en alike. So 
 also & 300, and ἃ 600, but not indeed mix» wide and MIND vw, 
 as 1 Kings v. 16, x. 16; 1 Sam. xi. 8. To what danger was 
 not the number ‘ten ’exposed ! The number-word wy was not 
 the cause thereof, but the little numeral letter +, which may 
 so easily be lost. Ezra ii. 39, Esther ix. 14, iii. 12, the number 
 ‘ten’ is wanting in the LXX. It is wanting also 2 Chron. 
 xxxvi. 9, as is evident from the parallel passage 2 Kings 
 xxiv. 8; it is wanting 2 Sam. xvii. 10, in which verse it is 
 twice rl in the LXX. 
 
 3. Finally, this hypothesis affords the reason why in 
 compound numbers, sometimes the first, sometimes the 
 last, now the greater, now the lesser fails: a single conso- 
 nant, how easily hustled or hidden by its next neighbour! 
 
 Of mixo won ows, Nehemiah viii. 70, the LXX express 
 only the number 30, leaving out the number 500. How far 
 more comprehensible is the omission of a Ἵ (500) than the 
 numeral words nix) won. In like manner also is wanting 
 with the LXX 1 Kings xx. 15 DW; 2 Chron. xvi. 13 nn, 
 2 Chron. xxiii. 20 MIND, Nehem. vii. 68, 69, thirteen numbers 
 are wanting. On the other hand numbers were also found by 
 the LXX where since their time, according to our Hebrew 
 
168 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 text, they are lost, as Nehemiah vii. 72, 1 Kings xv. 9, Esth. 
 vil. 12,2 Chron. xxviii. 1, 2 Kings i. 18, 1 Kings vii. 23. 
 
 Still it does not follow from the observations hitherto 
 applied, that no number at all is anywhere written out. 
 If in this matter we may rely on the old authors of 
 versions, it seems much more probable that numbers 
 were expressed at pleasure either by means of words or of 
 numeral letters. For, accustomed to numeral words 
 written at length, numeral words were often found by 
 them where according to the sequence of ideas of the 
 authors, and our present punctuation, none are admissible ; 
 sometimes our numbers are accompanied with such inti- 
 mations as imply numeral words written at length.! 
 
 Nehem. v. 11 403 nx, the LXX ἀπὸ του ἀργυριου AND 
 DD; Ps. xvi. 11 yaw (fulness), Symmachus ézra pay; 
 Proverbs xxvi. 16 ΠΡ, Symmachus ὕπερ ἕπτα, LX X του ἐν 
 πλησμονῃ ; Ecclesiastes viii. 12, nx, Symmachus, Aquila, and 
 Theod. ἀπεθανε, because they regarded the δὲ as nearly a ‘mater 
 lectionis’ (Lesemutter, Germ.), means of enunciation, and 
 derived the word from nid. See 1 Samuel ii. 5, 1 Book 
 
 Moses xli. 47, viii. 4, Ezekiel xlv. 5, Habak. iii. 2, the ancient 
 translators. 
 
 The employment of consonants as in general use in 
 their time for numeral letters, is implied by the Talmud ? 
 and by Jerome? in many places. 
 
 1 Concerning this matter, see Kennicott, i. p. 523, ii. p. 189, 201; 
 Hassencamp’s remarks against Kennicott concerning 1 Samuel vi. 19, 
 § 44. This subject ismisty indeed, for light to two Programmes of Faber, 
 Literas olim pro vocibus in numerando a scriptoribus V.T. esse adhibitas 
 (Onoldi, 1775. 4). 
 
 * According to Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. Ὁ. 53, ὃ 27, ed. Bruns, 
 this was proved by Leusden in Philologo Hebr. p. 128. 
 
 8 Yod (says Jerome) ‘apud Greecos et Hebr&os denarium numerum 
 significat,’ Jerome’s Opp. t. i. col. 318, t. iii. col. 1754, ed. Benedict. 
 Paris, 1693. 
 
NUMBER OF COPIES 169 
 
 SECTION 91.—Destruction of the Temple Copy. 
 
 How early or late the so far described Temple copy, 
 otherwise called the Codex of Ezra, perished, it is impos- 
 sible to determine. Its longer or shorter duration de- 
 pended on the material employed and the rare or frequent 
 use. At the time of Christ and the Apostles it was cer- 
 tainly no longer extant ;' it is neither mentioned by the 
 Talmud nor by a Father of the Church ; it was neither to be 
 found at Cairo nor at Chälon-sur-Saöne nor at Bologna 
 with the Dominicans,” as was formerly suggested by coarse 
 fraud or ignorance and received by holy simplicity. 
 
 SECTION 92.—Increase of the Copies. 
 
 After the founding of the new state in Palestine, it 
 became necessary to provide a multitude of copies of the 
 Old Testament, since it was thought good to establish 
 synagogues in cities, towns, and villages. It was the 
 
 ! Titus Vespasian took the then extant Temple copy with him to 
 Rome. Josephus, De Belle Jud. lib. vii. c. 5, § 5, p. 415, διεπρεπε Se 
 παντων Ta ἔγκαταληφθεντα Tw ἐν Ἱεροσολυμοις iepw’ xpvon τετραπεζα. .. 
 Kat λυχνια χρυσου. .. 6 τενομος ὃ των ᾿Ιουδαιων ἐπι τουτοις ἐφερετο των 
 λαφυρων τελευταιοις. .. compare Antig. vil. 6. Reland, De Spoliis 
 Templi Hierosol. p. 51 notes, p. 76 notes. Andif (as probably may be 
 taken) this was the exemplar which Josephus afterwards begged and 
 received as a present from Titus, the expression νομὸς must stand for 
 all the holy books of the Jews. For concerning the copy presented to 
 him, he says, De Vita sua, § 75, p. 38, airnow ἐποιουμην Tırov και βιβλιων 
 icpwy ἐλαβον xapicauevov Titov. Probably this was already a later copy 
 of the Old Temple exemplar. 
 
 2 It is probably a common roll of the Law, written in the eleventh 
 or twelfth century. Both ancient and modern scholars are agreed on 
 the point. With Kennicott it is marked No. 527. See Kennicott, 
 Dissert. Gener. Codex 527, p. 504 ed. Bruns; Adler’s Short Sketch of his 
 Biblical- Critical Travels, § 52. Also this codex has been treated by 
 Montfaucon, in Diario Italico, p. 309. Kennicott, in Diss. super Rat. 
 Teatus Hebr.t.i.p. 299. 
 
170 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 custom at first to have only a copy of the five Books of 
 Moses, because at that time Moses alone was read. But an 
 intolerant edict of the King of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 in virtue of which the Books of Moses were banished from 
 the synagogues, was the occasion that the Prophets fur- 
 nished the public readings, and afterwards when the edict 
 fell into desuetude Moses and the Prophets were read 
 together ; consequently each synagogue required a copy of 
 the Prophets also. 
 
 Whether, however, the Hagiographa about this time 
 was frequently copied, may seem doubtful. But if it be 
 considered that the book of Esther at least, which was the 
 subject of solemn lecture at the feast Purim, must have 
 been extant in numerous copies; that the desire of every 
 synagogue must have been to possess the entire Temple 
 library ; and that the Jews before the birth of Christ, in 
 their allusions to the Holy Scriptures, describe them always 
 under three heads (sec. 6) as if they had always been pre- 
 served in the same form—it must be inferred with the 
 highest probability that complete collections of all these 
 writings existed in numerous exemplars. Here then we 
 stand at the very origin of our various readings: and it 
 will be most convenient to inquire here immediately into 
 its varlous sources. 
 
 All kinds of various readings may be classed under 
 two heads—Oorrections and Faults in Writing. Amongst 
 corrections may be reckoned—1. Intentional corruptions ; 
 2. interpolated remarks and scholia; 3. alterations accord- 
 ing to the Midrashim, Targumim, Jewish commentaries 
 (Perushim), and grammar; 4. improvements suggested 
 by conjectural sagacity ; 9. and all sorts of orthographical 
 liberties, in which the alternatives for choice were those 
 enumerated from sec. 97 to 101. Amongst written faults— 
 1. Omissions arising from like words (ὁμοιοτελευτον) ; 
 
VARIOUS READINGS 171 
 
 2. exchange of similar consonants; 9. false division of 
 words; 4. transpositions ; and 5. wrong interpretations of 
 abbreviations and numeral letters. But in many cases 
 the choice of the category would be difficult, because the 
 origin of many readings may be derived from more than 
 one source; those arising from parallel passages may flow 
 Just as well from faults in writing or memory as from 
 express corrections. Hence it seems more suitable to 
 take all single cases separately, and leave to every one 
 its solution, in order to avoid a construction either too 
 limited or one-sided. 
 
 SECTION 93.—First Source: Twice-recurring Passages. 
 
 Many passages in the Old Testament occur twice: 
 Psalm xiv. and Psalm liii.; Psalm xl. 14 f. and Psalm Ixx. ; 
 Psalm xviii. and 2 Samuel xxii.; Psalm cviii. and Psalms 
 lv. 8-12 and lx. 7-14; Psalm cv. and 1 Chronicles 
 xvi. 8-22; Psalm xcvi. and 1 Chronicles xvi. 23-38 ; 
 Isaiah xxxvii., xxxviii. and 2 Kings xix., xx.; Jeremiah 
 lii. and 2 Kings xxiv.; and those passages in the Books of 
 Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles which are literally repeated 
 (see sec. 468, 480). ‘The compilers of the Old Testament 
 after the Babylonian captivity may have found some pas- 
 sages already introduced twice; others may have first 
 inserted them a second time. In the first case, a double 
 edition by the author himself is the source of such second 
 insertion (sec. 82) ; but sometimes the second edition was 
 the work ofa later author, or a new work was composed 
 from materials drawn from a more ancient one (sec. 83, 
 468, 480). In both cases words may have been changed, 
 new and more valuable readings selected, and, in short, 
 those changes made which constitute the essence of a 
 revised edition (sec. 82). 
 
I12 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 But in particular since the Babylonian exile some 
 historical passages have obtained a double place in the 
 Old Testament; in the first instance in the entire works 
 of the authors to whom they were assigned, and afterwards 
 in the chronicles of the Hebrews, where they were inserted 
 for the sake of completeness, as Jeremiah lii. and 2 Kings 
 xxiv.; Isaiah xxxvii., xxxvill. and 2 Kings xix., xx. The 
 editor who reduced the historical passages to order might 
 permit himself all sorts of liberties; here he might trans- 
 pose some matter, there reduce some other by abridgment ; 
 at one time he might change certain expressions, at 
 another the orthography. 
 
 Finally, many a thought is repeated in and from 
 passages the most different, sometimes expressed by the 
 same, sometimes by similar words, either because they 
 were analogous to one another, or because with regard to 
 many thoughts there exists but one natural, suitable, and 
 sufficient expression for them (sec. 139. 6). 
 
 He, then, who in manuscripts and old versions, or, in 
 their absence, in our printed editions, examines sections 
 and passages of the kind, will find that such recurring or 
 like passages have been compared and corrected by and 
 out of one another ; or if the mode of proceeding has not 
 been quite so daring, that the variations of both texts have 
 been noted by the industry of some observer at first in the 
 margin and by the later hand of some scribe or small critic 
 inserted in the text itself. This, however, was not the case 
 in all manuscripts, and even in those where it occurred, 
 not to the recurring passages throughout, but sometimes 
 here, sometimes there, with reference to single expressions. 
 Such was the rise of the various readings. 
 
 In Isaiah (xxxviii. 21, 22) in the relation of the healing of 
 King Hezekiah, the discourse of the King with the Prophet is 
 
VARIOUS READINGS 173 
 
 abridged and the circumstance passed over of the order of 
 application of figs to the plague-boils by Isaiah, as mentioned 
 2 Kings xx. 7, 8. But this information taken from the 
 parallel passage was carried to the margin of a manuscript of 
 Isaiah, and from thence inserted in a place where it had no 
 right to stand, namely, Isaiah xxxviii. 21, 22. 1 Book Moses 
 7, 6, Δ" seems to be a gloss, sprung from a parallel passage 
 (‘ Repertory for Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part v. sec. 215). Isaiah 
 lxiii. 5, many manuscripts have ‘npty) instead of "ΠῚ because 
 in transcribing, the first word, from Is. Jix. 16, wasin the mind 
 of the copyists. 1 Book Moses xliii. 9, the reading ‘1x5 for 
 > arose from an exchange with 1 Book Moses xliv. 32. See 
 sec. 99. Ps. xiv. 5, the words, IND \7nD ay are rendered by the 
 LXX by ἐκει ἐδειλίασαν φοβῳ, οὗ οὐκ ἦν hoBos, as in Ps. liii. 6 
 in the second edition of our Psalms. Many examples are 
 afforded by Kennicott’s Bible from 1 Sam. xx., and the other 
 passages above quoted ; from manuscripts; from ancient 
 versions; the ‘Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part iv. 
 sec. 109 ff; from our Bible-editions ; Vogel’s remarks on 
 ‘Capelli Crit. Sacr.’ sec. 30 ff ; Bruns on Kennicott’s ‘ Diss. 
 Gen.’ sec. 61. 
 
 SECTION 94.— Second Source : Scholia. 
 
 Already in very early times scholia were written on the 
 margins of manuscripts. In the childhood of the author- 
 world, when precision in expression was not aimed at, the 
 phrase for a later reader is deficient in meaning;- the 
 author had no anticipation that his later reader would miss 
 an idea, since its absence was not perceptible to himself. 
 Often, even for the sake of a euphemism, something was 
 omitted. In both cases the possible supplement was 
 written by some officious hand on the margin, and by 
 another transferred to the text. 
 
 Such a scholium is the non 7353, 1 Book Moses iv. 8, which 
 is yet found in the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch and ex- 
 
174 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 pressed by the LXX, the Syrian, Itala, and the Targums of 
 Jerusalem and Aquila (‘ Repert.’ &c. Pt. ii. sec. 243). 1 Book 
 Moses xxxv. 22, an ancient but silly scholium is given 
 by the LXX, which bears the mark of a foolish commen- 
 
 tator : Kat πονηρον ἐφανὴ ἐναντιον αὐτου. Compare 1 Book 
 Kings 11. 32. 
 
 Section 95 A.— Third Source: Midrashim. 
 
 Already in very early times, detached words, phrases, 
 and passages of the Old Testament were played with by 
 the Jews, and all kinds of spiritual or allegorical meanings 
 therefrom brought to light, which were termed DEIN 
 (allegorical explanations). These fancies were carried by 
 them before the birth of Christ sometimes into the text 
 with all kinds of signs, sometimes only to the margins of 
 manuscripts ; and subsequently, either through accident or 
 ignorance, thence into the text itself. As signs of their 
 allegorical chimeras, the Jews employed literas majusculas 
 inversas, suspensas, finales in the middle of words, and 
 medianas at the end of them ;! they dismembered the text 
 in the most: arbitrary way ; perpetrated abscissions, addi- 
 tions, interlineations; as was most suitable to their 
 allegorical diversion. 
 
 See Olai Gerh. Tychsen, ‘ Tentamen de variis Codd. Hebr. 
 Novi Testamenti MSS. generibus,’ sec. 197 ff. Judges xviii. 30, 
 
 ΓΙ was already found by the LXX instead of nw lest any 
 one at the first view of this passage might suppose that the 
 son of Moses was the first idolator. In the Talmud the read- 
 ing nwım is mentioned (‘ Bava Bathra,’ fol. 109.6, ed. Venet. 
 1548). See Kennicott, ‘ Diss. Gen.’ sec. 21. And one of the oldest 
 and most important manuscripts of the LXX has Μανασση. 
 
 13 B. Moses vi. 4, may serve as a proof, where Sy is an exegetical 
 gloss to remind of a dictum classicum, aS 9} in the 2 B. Moses. 
 
VARIOUS READINGS 175 
 
 See ‘Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part ii. sec. 223. A 
 greater allegorical gloss, δος AON Dwn, had already before the 
 time of the LXX, 1 Sam. vi. 20, wrought its way into the 
 text. See Tychsen, ‘Tentamen,’ sec. 211 ; Hufnagel, ‘ Dissert. 
 super 1 Sam. vi. 19 ;’ De Rossi, ‘De Typogr. Hebr. Origine,’ 
 Erlang. 1778. See De Rossi, ‘Cod. Pontif.’ p. 85 ;‘ Repert. 
 for Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part xv. 172. If Isaiah xxxii. 2, xd 
 should stand for j5 even according to the Masora, this would 
 be then probably a cabalistical trifling, which, however, has 
 not found its way into the manuscripts, since Kennicott 
 quotes his codex in favour of δ. According to the treatise 
 Peah, e. 5, Mish. 6, Proverbs xxii. 25, out of poiyd by means 
 of explanatory play pdipd is formed. See Rabe’s translation, 
 sec. 88. Compare also Judges xv. 10, with xvi. and Talmud 
 ‘ Hierosol. Tract. Sota,’ fol. 17, which will have Judges xvi. 30 
 to be read according to an allegorical explication D’YINN, a 
 reading which fortunately no accident has introduced into the 
 Hebrew text. Tychsen has further Midrashim from the 
 Talmud (which, however, have not crept into the Biblical text) 
 in ‘ Tent.’ pp. 202, 203, 211. 
 
 SECTION 95 B.— Fourth Source: Alterations after Targumim, 
 Perushim, and Grammar. 
 
 After the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the 
 Chaldean, a reading frequently obtruded itself uncon- 
 sciously on the copyists, in the midst of their labours, 
 which gave expression to the Targum against the Hebrew 
 text; sometimes, indeed, they endeavoured to reconcile the 
 reading of the Hebrew text with the expression of the 
 Targumim by a deliberate alteration ; sometimes because 
 the sense of their church version was more familiar to 
 them than that of the Hebrew text, sometimes because 
 both were written by them verse-wise immediately after 
 one another. 
 
 Ps. liv. 5, Luther in his edition read oO} “proud people,’ 
 
176 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 instead of ot ‘feroigners,’as the Chaldean only has it ; hence 
 this edition, or the manuscript which was its basis, seems to 
 have been altered from the Targum. Joel 11, 23, JWNTD “as 
 formerly,’ which the LX X and cod. 335 have, is perhaps to be 
 preferred to }WN12 “in the first month,’ which has probably 
 become the prevailing reading only by means of the Chaldean. 
 See sec. 134, 218. 
 
 In like manner also readings in the text of the Bible 
 emanated from certain explanations usual among the Jews 
 (Perushim) either because they had them in their minds at 
 the time of copying, or they were found by them in the 
 margin of the manuscript which was the subject of their 
 labours. 
 
 5 Book Moses xxvii. 26, 3 NS is cited Gal. 11. with a 
 $3, πασι, which is wanting in the present editions. But 65 was 
 found by Kennicott in four Hebrew and in numerous Chal- 
 dean manuscripts (Kennicott, ‘ Dissert Gen.’ sec. 84. 3), into 
 which, according to the opinion of Bruns (in the ‘ Repert. for 
 Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part xv. sec. 171) it came from the Peru- 
 shim : ‘ The reading,’ says he, ‘may have come so much the 
 more readily into the Hebrew and Chaldean manuscripts as 
 R. Bechai and Rashi certainly, and perhaps other Jews, will 
 have this curse extended to all the commands of the Law.’ 
 5 Book Moses xxiii. 3, one codex of Kennicott’s reads 11191 
 instead of 71199, respecting which Bruns, in the passage quoted 
 from the ‘ Repertory,’ remarks : ‘ Michaelis wished to find this 
 reading, and Dathe found it, but Rambam explains this word 
 by dividing it DD (see Mendelssohn’s version, with a Rab- 
 binical commentary, and Vogel upon this passage). And the 
 Jewish explication mentioned floated in the thoughts of the 
 Jew who wrote 119119 instead of 1119p.’ Codex 345 appears, 
 1 Book Moses xiv. 20, to have had wy» DIAN bin, accord- 
 ing to a usual Jewish interpretation, that Abraham gave 
 tithes to Melchizedek, as Hebr. vi. 4; Rashi says 
 wwyp ὉΠ ΣΝ i> yn “et dedit ei Abraham decimas.’ Bruns ad 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 177 
 
 ‘Kennicotti Dissert. Gener.’ sec. 31. Cod. 507, 5 Book Moses 
 xxxü. 43, has yy MN; and since it is a German manuscript - 
 Rashi’s interpretation was in the mind of the copyist, 
 Seow) mx main inaw’ por nerd, “hoc tempore laudabunt 
 Israelem gentes,’ which led him to "oy nx. Bruns ad ‘ Kenni- 
 cotti Diss. Gener.’ sec. 84. 5, p. 196. Compare the quota- 
 tion, Rom. xv. 10. 
 
 Finally, that, since the rise of a system of Hebrew 
 grammar, learned Jews have taken the liberty in the case 
 of deviations from their rules to make alterations, and to 
 introduce constructions and forms more regular, will 
 further on be supported with examples (sec. 135). 
 
 Section 95 c.—Fifth Source: Conjectures ex Ingenio. 
 
 Some writings of the Old Testament appear to have 
 come into the hands of the compilers in very faded copies ; 
 and many gaps and irreparably injured passages, with 
 respect to which the ancient translators as well as the 
 latest interpreters appear to have been equally at a loss, 
 are derived probably from such exemplars. The com- 
 pilers of our canon read and guessed to the best of their 
 ability ; but what was quite lost was beyond their means 
 to restore, sinee their labours in this regard were scareely 
 guided by a miraculous leading of the Deity. 
 
 In the following centuries the transcribers were in the 
 same difficulty, and the illegible text was restored by them 
 as seemed best to their judgment, and with as much acute- 
 ness and conjectural talent as they possessed. Since they 
 did not always hit the mark, variations unavoidably arose 
 between a copy containing such conjectures and other 
 exemplars. 
 
 Kommershausen, in his ‘ Introduction to the Old Testament,’ 
 
 sec. 153, has an example which I will here give in his words : 
 N 
 
178 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ‘ The Syrian (and the old versions are as good as manuscripts, 
 for the versions show evidently what their readings were) 
 varies in the Books of the Chronicles very abundantly from 
 the Hebrew text. A plain example is to be found 2 Chron. 
 i. 15. Here in the Hebrew it runs: “ Et fecit rex Salomon 
 argentum et aurum Hierosolymis ut lapides, et cedros dedit ut 
 sycomoros, DAPW>, que in planitie sunt innumere.” But the 
 Syrian has it : “Et cedros dedit μέ arenam que ad littus maris 
 copia summa.” Instead of D’%PW he has arenam ; DPVW can 
 never mean arenam. But did he read it differently ? Perhaps 
 Sin instead of Dmpw? That is incredible, for the two words 
 have no resemblance. One can scarcely see the possibility 
 how bin should come out of D'DpY or the contrary. Much 
 more likely is it that a very ancient manuscript lay before the 
 Syrian translator of the Books of Chronicles, from whence 
 he made his version. This old manuscript had many holes. 
 This also happened in our passage. The Syrian, doubtless, 
 found in his Hebrew manuscript: WN.----- 3 1m ON 
 ab nbawa “et cedros dedit tanquam... .” (nbaw he took 
 from the sea-shore) ; sand, therefore, which is countless, naturally 
 occurred to him. He filled up the gap and threw in sand ; 
 now it would be absurd to hold up this as a various reading: 
 It is merely a mistake of the Syrian, a bad guess.’ 
 
 Section 95 p.—Siath Source: Deliberate Corruption. 
 
 Little cause as there exists to call into doubt the 
 evidence of Josephus as to the high reverence with which 
 the Jews were accustomed to deal with their sacred 
 national books ; small as down to his time the alterations 
 they may have ventured on either as to diminutions or 
 additions; and evident as the traces are, after his time, of 
 the transcription of their sacred books by them with the 
 most anxious honesty, the inference will nevertheless 
 only be that deliberate changes were never carried to 
 excess; and the conjecture will not be destroyed, that 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 179 
 
 individual Jews for private ends may have made altera- 
 tions in single passages. In the meantime, however, I am 
 aware of only two passages where this accusation against 
 the Jews will lie. Ps. xxii. 17, "83 seems to have been 
 written by them for the purpose of removing the striking 
 similarity between the death of Christ and this passage ; 
 and Is. xix. 19 was probably interpolated by the Egyptian 
 Jews for the purpose of having something concerning a 
 temple at Leontopolis to be found in Isaiah. 
 
 SECTION 95 E.—Seventh Source : Transposition of Single 
 Words and Entire Sections. 
 
 In still-existing manuscripts of the Hebrew text in- 
 stances enough are to be found of the transposition of 
 longer and shorter sections and detached words, by the 
 negligence of transcribers, of which marginal notices are 
 often given by them.! And faults of this kind were com- 
 mitted in the oldest times, as the passages show, where, 
 however evident the transpositions may be, still every 
 trace of a pre-existing different arrangement has vanished. 
 
 Job xl. 32—xli. 3 may afford an example, of which passage 
 many reasons may be adduced to show that it now fills a false 
 place and ought to conclude chap. xli. But no trace of this 
 transposition is held out by any ancient version. Is. xxxviii. 
 
 ! Codex 437, by the side of Ps. lvi. is written 4} ΠΣ nnaw 
 ὉΔῚ ἼΒΡΟ ID ND Pawn. WS Nand) nds no by nyind arn: 
 ‘Oblitus sum scribere hunc Psalmum lvi., eumque scripsi numero alius 
 ordinis’ (AN WD, sc. Ixiv.) ‘libri Psalmorum.’ And on the margin of the 
 55th Psalm, which was written after the 63rd, the scribe again remarks 
 sind sony tb Sowa maa mynd anxd anise pp qyoren at 
 m pawns, ‘Hunc Psalmum legunt post, qui incipit Ὁ Ὁ “3 6 qui 
 signatur numero lv.,’ and at the end of the Psalm snnsww worn ΠῚ 
 33 pawns nöynb ΤῸΝ ΠΣ, ‘Hic est Psalmus quem oblitus sum 
 scribere supra numero lvi’ Compare Bruns ad Kennicot. Dissert. 
 General, § 23. 
 
 N 2 
 
180 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 21, 22 is evidently in a wrong place (sec. 93). I pass over 
 the transpositions in Jeremiah and many not improbable in- 
 stances adduced by Kennicott in ‘ Dissert. Gen.’ (sec. 22, 
 23, 71). 
 
 SECTION 96.—Eighth Source: False Sight. 
 
 1. Certain consonants of the Hebrew square alphabet, in 
 manuscripts, and even in our oldest Bible editions, which 
 follow the type of the manuscripts very closely, look so like 
 one another as to be very difficult of distinction, especially 
 if without points. +7 and ἡ for instance, can often only be 
 distinguished by the help of the Dagesh lene and Raphe, 
 and 3 and 5 not at all. Hence consonants, related to each 
 other merely by the figure, are exchanged in numberless 
 places. 
 
 2. Others, however, have acquired only an accidental 
 resemblance, sometimes through an irregular stroke of a 
 transcriber, sometimes by the extinction of a stroke, some- 
 times by the unskilful renovation of a faded text, or by 
 some accident fitted to deform a letter. 
 
 Without pretending to completeness, which would be 
 only possible in a space of ten years, I will bring the 
 changes of this sort into an alphabetical list, and for this 
 purpose cite chiefly the variations to be found in every 
 edition of the Bible, Keri and Chetiv, that each person, 
 without the aid of Polyglot and Kennicott, may satisfy 
 himself respecting their permutations. Quotations from 
 other sources will be particularly noted. 
 
 3 for Ἵν» Jos. xv. 47 ; Nehem. vii. 34, Hebr. 254, LX X 252. 
 So 2,2, 1 4, are interchanged 1 Kings vii. 15, Hebr. 12, 
 LXX 14; Esther i. 7, Hebr. 12,.LXX 14, both times 3, 
 2 interchanges with Ἵν 4. 
 
 5 with 5,905. vi. 9 31° Sam, xi. 1652 Samiivi 24, za al 
 2 Kings iii, 24 ; Prov. xxi. 29 ; Ezr. viii. 14; Nehem. iii. 20; 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 181 
 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 69, Hebr. Yı83, LXX, the Arabian, Vulgate, 
 Itala, the Syrian, editions and manuscripts, on the other 
 hand, p82. 
 
 3 with % Ezekiel iii. 15, 
 
 i with » 4 Book Moses iii. 28, where perhaps, on account of 
 the sum total in ver. 39, map widy ought to stand, instead of 
 MIND WY, sothat 4 3, and 1» 6, seem to have been exchanged, as 
 2 Chron. iii. 16, many manuscripts have ww instead of wıhw. 
 
 i for t} Ezekiel xxv. 7; 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, DW yaw, or t 
 7, LXX τρια Ern, as 1 Chron. xxi. 12, nw wioy or 3, 3. 
 
 Ἵ exchanged with 2: see above 3 with 7: 
 
 7 with 7, see below n with : 
 
 = wıth, ν᾿ Kings: ὙΠ’. 335 1 Sam: xvi, 4. Hebr: 6 
 » LXX and Josephus (‘ Antig.’ vi. 9. 1) 4, 7 
 
 7 with » 2 Kings xvi. 6 ; Proverbs xix. 19 ; 1 Sam. iv. 13 ; 
 2 Sam. xiii. 37 ; Jerem. ii. 20; the great Masorah being com- 
 pared with Jerem. xxxi. Ps. xix. 14, Hebr. ny, LXX ἀπὸ 
 ἀλλοτριων. 
 
 73 with n 1 Kings xix. 4; 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 ; Is. lxvi. 17. 
 
 n with Ἵ» Jerem. xxii. 6, 11. 14, 15. 
 
 n with nm Proverbs xx. 21 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 37 ; Daniel ix. 24 ; 
 2 Kings xx. 21 ; Song of Songs i. 17, where the Masora is to 
 be looked into. See also Hieronym. ‘ Questiones in Genesin,’ 
 Siv, D. 
 
 n with 3, Jerem. xxi. 12, xlix. 30. 
 
 Π with D or ® Is. xxx. 32; 2 Kings viii. 17; 2Sam. xii. 13. 
 
 n with rm Jer. xxviii. 1, xliv. 25, lii, 21; 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 
 πεν 11. 
 
 mn with }» Proverbs xxv. 20. 
 
 ΝΠ with 7% 2 Kings xvii. 31. 
 
 ‘5 with w, Is. xvi. 9 77°, instead of which the Chaldean 
 and Jerem. xlvili. 42 have 17. 
 
 ἡ with 3, see above ἃ with 1: 
 
 ı with 7, see above Ἵ with }- 
 
 ἡ with Ὁ see below 1 with 1: 
 
 ὁ with ® in numberless places ; for instance, Jerem. vi. 25; 
 Josh. vi.9 ; Ps. Ixxi. 20, ce. 
 
182 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 ἢ) with 7; see above A with }- 
 
 m) with ’n, see above "Π with m 
 
 t with 3; see above 3 with }- 
 
 t with » 2 Sam. vi. 13, Hebr. 6,1, LXX and Vulgate 
 7, 1; Malachi i. 6, Hebr. 7 0, Vulgate and Chaldean "2, 
 but the Syrian tm. 
 
 n with 2, 1 Kings xvi. 29, Hebr. 38, no, LXX only 2, > 
 because 30, 5, in their manuscript had disappeared ; 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. D’INMN, LXX θαβασων. 
 
 n with m see above 7 with Π' 
 
 nm with Π,; Ps. xviii. 35, Hebr. ΠΣ, LXX, on the other 
 hand, Vulgate and Jerome nnn. 
 
 6 with & 1 Sam. xiv. 32. 
 
 ’ with 1» see above } with "- 
 
 » with 5 when ἡ in being copied was made too large, 
 
 i pam. xv. 4, Hebr. 10:000, ...*.-. A but EX πε δ. 
 ’ with ἢ» Esther ix. 15, Hebr. 75,000,... mY, but LXX 
 Τη 00). 22 ait 
 
 3 with 3; see above 3 with 3. 
 
 5 with Mm: see above rt with 5: 
 
 > with » 1 Sam. iv. 18, Hebr. 40, Ὁ. but LXX 20,5; fur- 
 ther, 2 Chron. xxii. 2, Hebr. 42, LX X 20 (perhaps 22), and 
 1 40, 5; 20. 
 
 3 with » Ezek. xxvii. 7, Hebr. D» LXX D3, compare 
 Clericus on 2 Book Moses xvii. 16, and Cappellus on Is. 
 xxxiii. 2; 1 Chron. xv. 6, some have 20, 3; others 50, 2: 
 
 5 with 5, 1 Kings xii. 21, Hebr. 180,000, LX X, on the con- 
 trary, 120,000 (5; 80 ; 3, 20); 1 Sam. xix. 22, Hebr. 13% LXX 
 σεφι, DY. 
 
 Ὁ with y,1 Sam. xix. 22, Hebr. the number 30,5, LXX 
 with Josephus (‘ Antiq.’ vi. 4. 1) 70,93; 2 Sam. vi. 1, Hebr. 
 30,000, 5, but LXX 70,000, 9; 2 Kings xxiii. 8, yar LXX 
 γαιβαλ, 523; 1 Kings vii. 21 15}, LXX βολωξζ tba; 1 Sam. 
 viii. 18 53% LXX yaßae, as 1 Sam. xiv. 5 is written by them y33- 
 
 with 7, see 7 with 2: 
 
 with 3; see 3 with D- 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 183 
 
 » with 8, Is. Ixiv. 4, see below sec. 97. 
 
 Dor Owith 5 or 7 1 Kings i. 47. 
 
 Dor O with 1» Jos. v. 1. Is. xxxiii. 2, Hebr. nytt ; on the 
 contrary, according to the context, the Vulgate, the Syrian, 
 the Chaldean s3y7r. Ps. xii. 8, Hebr. O750WN ; on the contrary, 
 according to the context, LXX, Vulg., Arabian ἡ ΟΠ ; and 
 immediately after again Hebr. 1%yn, Chald. DIyn. Similar 
 cases see Is. x. 9 ; Ps. Ixxx. 7; Ps. lxiv. 6, with the Syrian ; 
 Ps. xxx. 7, with the LXX and Syrian. 
 
 19 with OD, Ps. xi. 1, Hebr. 0397; on the other hand, the 
 context, LX X, Aquila, the Syrian, the Chaldean, the Vulgate 
 102 19; in the same manner, according to some interpreters, 
 Is. xxxiii. 11, instead of 23), DIN is to be read. 
 
 D with ἢ» see below ἢ with D- 
 
 D with see below X with D- 
 
 D with N; see below N with D- 
 
 3 with 3, see above 3 with }- 
 
 2 with 5 2 Kings vi. 25, Hebr. 80, 5, LX X 50, » 
 
 ν with ' see above " with Y- 
 
 y with 5, see above 5 with Y- 
 
 y with ¥, 2 Kings xx. 4; see below ¥ with 3 andsec, 97. 
 
 5 with 3, see above 3 with B- 
 
 5 with 2, see above 1 with 5- 
 
 5 with 3» see above ) with 5- 
 
 ἢ with Ὁ» 1 Chron. xii. 35, Hebr. 28, 600, LXX 28, 800 
 (Ὁ 600, ἢ 800) ; Nehem. vii. 11, Hebr. 2,818, but LXX 2,618 
 according to the first recited permutation ; 1 Chron. iz 501: 
 Hebr. "In LXX ἀριμ. 
 
 x with »» see above » with ¥; 1 Sam. iv. 15, Hebr. 98, the 
 Syrian and Arabian 78 (70990 ¥). 
 
 p with » see below 7 with ?- 
 
 > with n» 1 Kings ix. 28, Hebr. 400, n but LXX 100, >; 
 1 Sam. xxii. 5, Hebr. nn» LXX PN σαρικ. 
 
 Ἵ with 2» see above 3 with Ὕ 
 
 = with”; see above Ἵ with "- 
 
 = with p 1 Sam. xviii. 27, Hebr. 200, » LXX 100, p- 
 
184 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 “with N, Ezr. ii. 28, Hebr. 200, 1, LX X 400, n; 1 Chron. 
 1. 51 nn» LXX ἰεθερ ἍΤ." compare iv. 17 ; 2Sam. xi. 3, xii. 24, 
 Hebr. yaw-na, LXX βηρ-σαβεε; 2 Sam. xx. 14, 15, Hebr. 
 mayo na, LXX deppaxa. 
 
 w with 'n; see above Mwith w. 
 
 w with o 1 Kings v. 16, Hebr. 300, Σ LX X 600, 0;1 Sam. 
 xi. ὃ, Hebr. 300,000, LX X 600,000, so 300, & , and 600, D, are 
 changed ; 1 Kings x. 16, Hebr. and LXX differ again about 
 this number. 
 
 N with, see above Ἵ with n- 
 
 n with M see above ΠῚ with Nn. 
 
 n with D 1 Sam. xxii. 13, Hebr. 600, Ὁ, LXX n, 400. 
 
 n with }, 1 Chron. xi. 18. 
 
 NM with Pp, see above p with n- 
 
 N with % see above 1 with N- 
 
 Ἢ with nm Ps. xvi. 6, Hebr. non) LXX, on the other hand, 
 Vulgate, the Arabian, the Syrian, and our vowel-points 
 ΡΠ. Ps. exviil. 14, Hebr. nt ; on the contrary, according 
 to parallelism and the points ’nA%t ; Is. xii. 2, Hebr. nor, 
 LXX, Vulgate, Chaldean, Syrian, and the vowels "21. 
 Compare 2 Book Moses xv. 2, but see about »n711 sec. 102. 
 
 Let this list be compared with sec. 352. 
 
 3. Also some consonants easily escape the eye, from 
 the smallness of their size, and are lost among their larger 
 neighbours. Thus, » for instance, is frequently either 
 lost or overlooked. 
 
 Esther ii. 39, Hebr. 1,017, LXX 1,007 ; the overlooked 
 number 10 was not expressed in the Hebr. codex of the LXX 
 by the word "wy, but by * Esther ix. 14, Haman, according to 
 the Hebr. text, has 10 (*) sons, the LXX leave the number 
 out. Other examples of the kind have been already adduced 
 (sec. 90. 2).} 
 
 1 For this section let a comparison be made with Faber’s Programs, 
 
 in which he shows ‘literas olim pro vocibus in numerando a scriptori- 
 bus N. T. esse adhibitas.’ 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 185 
 
 4. Yet with regard to this source of various readings 
 we are not to dwell merely on the figures which now bear 
 resemblance to one another in the Hebrew alphabet, espe- 
 cially if it be desired to throw light on the true origin of 
 these variations, which are to be found already in the 
 most ancient critical authorities. The figures of the 
 Hebrew consonants underwent only some further slight 
 change since the time of Jerome and of the Talmud ; but in 
 the centuries before their time consonants which now have 
 nothing common in their features, bore great similarity to 
 one another in figure, and were subjected to abundant 
 permutation. Thus the exchange of {38 and Sax inter- 
 preted already by Symmachus as ’AßeX (1 Samuel vi. 
 18), admits of an easier explication by the Phcenician, 
 Palmyrenean, and Samaritan alphabet, in which 5 and ; 
 are similar, than from our square alphabet.! 
 
 Section 97.—Ninth Source: False Hearing. 
 
 Some consonants of the Hebrews have a close alliance 
 in sound and pronunciation; with regard to others a 
 different pronunciation was possible; others, again, were 
 unpronounceable by several sections of the Hebrew nation, 
 from a defect in the organs of speech. To the first class 
 belonged w + and Ὁ, and the like; to the second, y, 
 which was sometimes pronounced like the c of ‘the 
 
 Arabians, and sometimes like the &; and hence, also, 
 sometimes expressed by the Greeks by y; or also, to give 
 another example, x, which, according to the Syrian dialect, 
 might be sounded between two vowels, like ». To the last 
 class belonged the aspirate letters YN, which in the 
 
 1 Kommershausen, Introduction to the O. T. § 151, 1 B. Moses xiv. 2, 
 Hebr. nda, LXX, yoo according to an easy exchange of p for y in 
 the Samaritan and Phoenician alphabet. 
 
186 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 mouth of the Galilean and Samaritan all sounded like y,! 
 a fault from which also many Jews of another tribe were 
 not quite free. 
 
 If now a transcriber read aloud to himself, or another 
 to him, the text indistinctly, or with the faults before 
 mentioned, changes of single consonants would necessarily 
 take place in copying, and various readings of this kind 
 be the result, of which here follow some examples taken 
 from the sources in sec. 96 in alphabetical order. 
 
 N with » between two vowels, according to the Syrian pro- 
 nunciation, as INT with 347 1 Sam. xxii. 18, compare 22; 
 Daniel ii. 38, iii. 32, vi. 26. ὙΠ with I¥in, Zechar. xi. 13, 
 in the same way as ἽΝ) is grown out of MN) Zech. iv. 2. 
 See Christ. Bened. Michaelis, ‘Syriasmus,’ sec. 4, § 3, a. 
 
 N with % as by with 5x, Is, xxxvii. 9, compare 2 
 Kanes xixe9, 
 
 2 with 1» both pronounced like V, as 3 with {227 
 Dan. vii. 10. 
 
 2 with 2» which with the Orientals must have had a great 
 similarity in pronunciation, as Dibon and Dimon, 923% and 
 119910, rete, Becca Mecca. Jos. iii. 16, xxiv. 15, iv. 18, vi. 15; 
 Judges xix. 25; 2 Kings xxiii. 33, v.12; 1 Sam. xi. 9; 
 Dan. ix. 15, compare sec. 96. (Golius ad Alfragan v. 
 Mecca.) 
 
 Ἵ with N-especially if 1, having sometimes a hissing sound, 
 
 is pronounced like 4 of the Arabians and N (the English 
 ‘th’) of the Hebrews: 1 Kings xix. 4. See also sec. 96. 
 
 1 with 3; see above 3 with }- 
 
 t with ®, Ps. lix. 10, Hebr. 7908 ; on the other hand, the 
 LXX, Vulgate, Athiopian, and Chaldean nMrN- 
 
 n with» Ps. χουν. 12, Hebr. yt; LXX, on the contrary, 
 Chaldean, manuscripts, &e., ΠῚ: 377 and Ay, Zeph. ii. 14, 
 compare Is. xxxiv. 11. 
 
 1See Buxtorf, in Zexico Chald.-Thalm. s. v. ba, Wetstein, Ad 
 Matth. xxvi. 73. 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 187 
 
 with 3; see above 3 with 2: 
 
 » with 5, see above 3 with 2: Is. Ixv. 4; 1 Kings vi. 1, 
 Hebr. 80, 8 LXX 40, Ὁ. Jos. ix. 3, Hebr. nayn, LXX 
 Macovp MOND. 
 
 Y with M see above M with y- 
 
 y with % which in the utterance of the Orientals must have 
 been nearly allied, because in the Hebrew many words occur 
 spelt with both y and % as v2 and Y2% Yyo and yy and in 
 the Syrian and Chaldean an v is often found for the Hebrew 
 %. for instance ys, Chald. 7yIN, Syrian iste 3 Kings xx. 4 ; 
 | Kings iv. 14, Sty, σαδδω ; 1 Chron. 4, σωναν. 
 
 5 with OD; see above with 5: 
 
 Ν with y, see above y with δ: 
 
 wv with 1» see above ? with w. 
 
 Nn with Ἵ; see above 7 with N- 
 
 Compare with this sec. 98, 352. 
 
 Generally speaking, the pronunciation of the transcriber, 
 or, if he was dictated to, that of his reader, had a greater 
 influence on the text which was being given than might 
 be thought; it was the occasion of several words being 
 thrown together into one, or of one being divided into 
 several. In this manner, 4 Book Moses xxii. 10, the 
 single word 15D arose out of 78D). See Venema ad 
 Malach. i. 13. 
 
 SECTION 98.—Tenth Source : The Custom of Reading 
 Different from what is Written. 
 
 Many consonants of the Hebrew alphabet are incapable 
 of pronunciation from their nature, as N and the otiose 
 final 7; or from carelessness or a quick utterance they are, 
 as it were, swallowed; nay, even among the Jews cases 
 occurred where, instead of the written word, quite a 
 different word was read. If, then, copying took place 
 
188 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 by the ear, how easily would consonants sometimes be 
 omitted, sometimes entirely different words written ! 
 
 mm) interchanges endless times with 78; and sometimes 
 with ods; because, instead of min» "ΣΝ was always pro- 
 nounced by the Jews, and in case of 78 being followed by 
 mim, ὈΠῸΝ was the pronunciation. And this mutation is of 
 remote antiquity. The LXX interpreters hence already ex- 
 press min’ by Κυριος, and the Talmud speaks of such change 
 as a matter quite established (Kiddushin, fol. 71 a, lin. 29 ; 
 Pesachim, fol. 50, a; Tychsen, ‘ Tent.’ p. 288; Kennicott 
 ‘Diss. Gen.’ sec. 25, fin.). 
 
 717? with 15, 2 Kings ix, 15, in some way after the 
 Syrian pronunciation. 
 
 San with on, Is. xiii. 20, because it was perhaps usual to 
 read Ins after a Syrian pronunciation. bmx’ is agreeable to 
 parallelism, together with Symmachus, the Vulgate, Syrian, 
 and Chaldean. 
 
 n39 with na 3), Lament. i. 6. 
 
 NAS with AN. 
 
 M33 with 72- Compare with this sec. 99, 352. 
 
 Section 99.—Eleventh Source: Faults from Memory. 
 
 Transcribers who copied not letter by letter mechanic- 
 ally, but grasped whole sentences and lines in their 
 memories and then wrote them down, must at times, 
 through a fault in their retentiveness, have exchanged 
 words of like signification for one another. The same 
 thing would happen if a passage chanced to be known to 
 them by heart, and they wrote rather from memory than 
 from the manuscript lying before them. 
 
 Judaicum ediscwnt et servant et metuunt jus, 
 Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses. 
 Juvenal, xiv. 101. 
 
 64 with xd : 5 Book Moses xxiv. 19,21wn 53, ‘Tract. Peah.’ 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 189 
 
 6. vi. s. 4; our editions, on the contrary, vn Nd. So also 
 63 with 5s : 3 Book Moses xxv. 36, ‘ Bava Mezia,’ 6. v. sec. 11, 
 npn 51; the printed editions npn 5x. 
 
 O8 with nN. 
 
 5 with 5x. 
 
 with 12. 
 
 Dr with on, 2 Sam. xxi. 9. 
 
 10 with nn, Is. liv. 16. 
 
 ox) the Oriental and 1237" the Western manuscripts, 
 2 Kings i. 10. 
 
 min’ with 78, of which an instance occurs already in the 
 Talmud. ‘Tract. Berachoth,’ c. vii. sec. 3 has, Ps. Ixviii. 27, 
 min) instead of the printed ‘378. See another example in the 
 edition of Hoog, Ps. Ixxxvi. 3. And in the same way these 
 words vary in the Eastern and Western manuscripts, 
 Lam. v. 22. Vogel on ‘ Cappelli Critica Sacra,’ pp. 30-51, 
 has gathered sufficient evidence on this point. Compare also 
 sec. 93. 
 
 SECTION 100.—Twelfth Source: Arbitrary Use of the 
 Matres Lectionis. 
 
 The use of the guides to reading, ἡ and », depended 
 entirely on the pleasure of the transcribers. Hence in 
 their respects manuscripts differ so abundantly from one 
 another, that the half of Kennicott’s collection of variations 
 consists in a notice of the plenarum and defectivarum. 
 Still the transcribers have seldom introduced more than 
 two matres lectionis into a word susceptible of a greater 
 number; only the introduction or omission of the matres 
 lectionis into any passage seems to have been left to their 
 discretion.! 
 
 1 Vogel, Dissertatio de Matribus Lectionis Librariorum Arbitrio olim 
 relictis, which as to the chief matters is repeated in Cappelli Critica 
 Sacra, p. 53; Michaelis, Orient. Libr. Part ii. 237, 238; xii. $ 109; 
 xiii. § 210; xviii. § 119; xx. § 97. 
 
190 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 101.—Thirteenth Source: An Acquaintance with 
 other Oriental Dialects. 
 
 If a transcriber were intimate with other Eastern dia- 
 lects, he carried the orthography as well as the words, 
 with which from them he was more familiar, into his copy 
 of the Hebrew Bible. 
 
 n for NN is often found in manuscripts. 
 
 + as the sign of a vowel, as nwy’N instead of Awyn, 2 Book 
 Moses xxv. 31, ’'On instead of ὙΠ, Ps. xvi. 10, both ac- 
 cording to a Chaldean Rabbinical orthography. ‘ Rept. for 
 Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part i. sec. 170 ; Part v. sec. 137. 
 
 ἐξ after 1 in the third person of the preterite plural, as 
 NIQN instead of 138, Is. xxvüi. 12; sindnn instead of 
 ybnn, Jos. x. 24, after an Arabian orthography. Also BNP 
 ( ab), Hos. 14, is an Arabism. 
 
 ’ according to a Chaldean fashion placed after the feminine 
 termination of the second person feminine of the personal 
 pronoun, and of the preterite and participle. Jer. x. 17, 
 Ceth. naw, Keri naw; Jer. iii. 5, xii, 21, &c. This 
 orthography is probably to be placed to the account of the 
 copyists almost always in old books, as in Micah, where for 
 instance nydana must be read (as the marginal notice, which 
 is merely an exegetical scholium, however, says), and iv. 15, 
 Bm. 
 
 Section 102.—Fourteenth Source: False Solution of the 
 Abbreviations. 
 
 In our still extant manuscripts, with regard to certain 
 words, and those which are also of frequent occurrence, 
 abbreviations are not altogether unusual ; also in the oldest 
 Bible editions, which follow closely the arrangement of the 
 manuscripts, many words are found abridged. Is it not 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 191 
 
 probable that in the most ancient times such abbreviations 
 of words were customary, and that thence, either by a false 
 explanation of them or an entire omission thereof, various 
 readings sprang up? At least by this hypothesis the rise 
 of many variations admits of a natural explanation. (See 
 above, sec. 90.) 
 
 »y from Wy, Josh. viii. 16, Ker. and Keth. 
 
 mand Sn, 2 Sam. xxiii. 20, K. and Keth. 
 
 WS and Ws, 2 Sam. xxiii. 21, K. and Keth. 
 
 9D perhaps from O13, Ps. xlv. 9. 
 
 tx (expressed already by the LXX) formed perhaps out of 
 ats, Ps. Ixix. 5. 
 
 8 from IS, Ps. Ixxxiv. 48. 
 
 Sesser Δ perhaps from Sx nen, Amos v. 6. Venema ‘In 
 Psalmos,’ t. i. p. 210. 
 
 Ss non perhaps from Dndy na, Zech. vii. 2. 
 
 δ by itself, instead of nin’, hence ‘JayD may come from 
 myn 2y> if it were abbreviated by "7393. Symmachus, 
 Is. xlii. 19, has interpreted 717° 1293 by ὃ dovAos pov. Ken- 
 nicott, ‘ Dissert. Gen.’ sec. 25, has still further instances of 
 this abbreviation. 
 
 mm’ non, Jerem. vi. 11, was formerly written ‘nn, for the 
 LXX translate θυμὸν pov. ‘nv, Ps. xxxi. 7, is interpreted 
 by all the ancient translators and Cod. 170 by nin: naw. 
 
 y282, 1 Book Kings ix. 18, perhaps from naiy DIR. 
 Compare 2 Chron. viii. 2, 3. 
 
 IN for in, Job xxii. 11, as still expressed by the LXX : ro 
 φως σοι σκοτος ἀπεβη. 
 
 ‘nN was often abbreviated, as the above-cited examples 
 (sec. 96) show. Either ' was attached to the upper stroke of 
 the N, as often occurs in manuscripts ; or perhaps, according 
 to a trick of the Rabbins, placed within the belly of the n, or 
 mnt was formerly written together in one word, with a 
 Yod, and its duplication left to pronunciation. But the 
 
192 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 pointers omitted the duplication, and as they divided the word 
 into two, contrary to speech, parallelism, &., they wrote 
 m nat." 
 
 Section 103.—Fifteenth Source: False Division of Words. 
 
 The old Hebrews wrote letter to letter, without any 
 intervening spaces (sec. 73 f.). When afterwards the words 
 were divided many mistakes were likely to occur, which 
 probably thereafter admitted of discovery and correction. 
 Now in some manuscripts the ancient errors were propa- 
 gated, in others the amended text was adopted. 
 
 mid >y instead of nin>v, Psalm xlviii. 15. The last 
 reading is contained in many manuscripts and editions, 
 and amongst the ancient ones the LXX, the Vulgate, and 
 the Chaldean. 
 
 nv anys, Kethib, and nen nyt, Keri, Job xxxviii. 
 12; mow and nid NW, or ®W*, Psalm lv. 16, Ker. and 
 Keth. In our Bible editions variations of the kind are 
 found in the following places: 1 Chron. xxvii. 12; Judges 
 xvi. 25; Lam. iv. 3, 16; 1 Chron. ix. 4; 1 Book Moses 
 xxx. 11; Jeremiah vi. 29; Isaiah xliv. 24. And at 
 na wx, 5 Book Moses xxxiii. 2, the lesser Masora remarks 
 that in fifteen places two words are combined into one 
 which require to be divided in reading. 
 
 ΠΣ nyt, the printed text; ΠΣ ΠΥ, the old translators ; 
 Isaiah xii. 2, 2 Book Moses xv. 4; compare sec. 96, 102.? 
 
 1 Stack, in Odis Davidis, Ὁ. i. p. 27, gathers many examples out of 
 
 the old translations of the Psalms of misinterpreted abbreviations. 
 2 See some further examples in Kennicott, Dissert. General. § 28. 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 199 
 
 SECTION 104.—WSiwteenth Source: Guardians of the Lines. 
 
 The transcribers of the Hebrew Bible did not permit 
 themselves the liberty of dividing words, and of writing 
 in the following line such consonants as the previous one 
 would not contain; but just as little did they allow them- 
 selves to leave a vacant space in any line. Now if at the 
 end of a line a space still remained, but insufficient for 
 the next word, the vacant space was filled at times with 
 any consonants at pleasure, but in general with the initial 
 letters of the next word, which, however, was written over 
 again at full length in the next line. Supposing a tran- 
 scriber to be inattentive to this arrangement, or too 
 ignorant to recognise the “custos,’ he carried these mere 
 stop-gaps into his new copy. 
 
 Thus, Isaiah xxxv. 1, 7279 Dw’ has arisen from 
 723719) we merely through a ‘custos;’ and perhaps Psalm 
 11. 7, 29, from a repetition of the last syllable of Iyn. 
 
 On the other hand learned copyists thought sometimes 
 to find such expletives where they did not exist, and left 
 out words which belonged to the text. 
 
 Thus, 2 Book Moses xxxi. 9, 52 is left out (129 for 
 ΝΣ aa because the copyists mistook it for a “ custos.’ 
 The Samaritan, LXX, the Syrian, Arabian, and Chal- 
 dean, according to a manuscript in the British Museum, 
 _ express the 52. (Kennicott, ‘ Dissertat. super Rat. Textus 
 Hebr.’ sec. 177.) 
 
 Section 105.—Seventeenth Source : ὁμοιοτέλευτον. 
 
 Moreover, in profane literature, itis sufficiently known 
 that the recurrence of the same word is a manifold source 
 of omission. And traces enough are to be found in the 
 infancy of criticism of the Hebrew text. 
 
 oO 
 
194 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 9, 10, 11, there stood formerly DW 15DN3 - - « 
 &c. wy ΠΡ" 3 Tv onwdps prop sin (10) : Sew sdyn monbnb 
 ‚non npdn ow any mondnd mend onwde ape (11) 
 So formerly as to the chief matter stood 1 Chron. xi. 13. 
 But the twice-recurring mond has given occasion to a great 
 omission. For now the passage is merely monbid ov IBDN) - - - 
 nen npbn sans (see ‘ Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part ii. 
 sec. 258 f.). So also Ps. xxxvii. 28, the first half of the verse, 
 which should begin with y, namely, D'ywn yon stows ody 
 n 3°, retained still by the LX X, Vulg., Arab., and Symma- 
 chus, has disappeared, because the so similar words nw odiyd 
 immediately preceded it. See ‘Repert.’ &c. Part vi. sec. 13. 
 The two verses Jos. xxi. 36, 37 are both gone, because vers. 
 36 and 38 began with ΠΡ, After Jos. xv. 59, one verse, if 
 not more, is omitted, occasioned by the constantly recurring 
 inmym : compare the LXX. Similar instances occur, 
 
 Judges xvi. 13 ; 2 Kings vii. 13, xxii, 16. 
 
 Section 106.—Eighteenth Source : Fondness for 
 Beautifully-written Manuseripts. 
 
 Finally a beautifully-written manuscript was a jewel 
 in the eyes of the Hebrews, worthy of payment in solid 
 gold. Hence the chief exertions of transcribers were 
 directed rather to beauty of execution than fidelity to their 
 exemplars, and crossings out were reluctantly made. If 
 the scribe, however, were moved enough by conscience to 
 make them, the strokes used were of so fine and somewhat 
 embellishing a character, as easily to elude the eye of an 
 inexperienced and not over-attentive copyist. Hence in 
 very early times false readings appear to have arisen. 
 
 When, however, afterwards the Bible was supplied 
 with points throughout, the punctuator came to the 
 rescue, left false readings as well as improperly repeated 
 words without points, and placed the improved readings, 
 together with the omitted words, in smaller characters on 
 
SOURCES OF ERRORS 195 
 
 the margin. But this method—which was adopted in 
 aid of the beauty of manuscripts—was not a convenient 
 one. How easily, in the current of his work, might not 
 the marginal insertion of the faulty or omitted word be 
 forgotten by the punctuator; or if made, the small character, 
 perhaps, of the consonants used, or their distance from the 
 place of the omission, fail of their due impression ; in short, 
 many an improved reading escape the view of an indif- 
 ferent transcriber. Finally, since consonants and vowel- 
 points were not written together, but each part separately, 
 would not the transcriber’s eye be of necessity principally 
 fixed on the consonants? How easy the oversight of the 
 punctuator’s mark of condemnation, consisting in the 
 omitted addition of the vowel-points ! 
 
 The preference for the external beauty of a manuscript un- 
 deformed by blottings must have appeared soon after the 
 Babylonian captivity. For by the omissions of such cancellings 
 the most ancient false readings were forced into the Hebrew 
 text ; in this manner, perhaps, the repetition of 7777}, Ps. lxv. 5, 
 took place, which was expressed, however, already by the LXX 
 and other ancient translators. From this source also I derive 
 the explanation of the iteration of the two verses of Ezr. i. 
 1, 2, at the end of the Books of Chronicles (xxxvi. 22, 23), 
 At first the author wished to make the history contained in 
 Ezra a continuation of the Books of Chronicles; but after- 
 wards altered his mind and determined to make a separate 
 work of it, when he had already commenced appending it to 
 the Books of Chronicles. In order to avoid defacing his 
 manuscript, he did not strike out the verses already written, 
 but merely copied them afresh in his new roll. 
 
 SECTION 107.—Alexandrian Version. 
 
 After the collection of the writings of the Old Testa- 
 ment and their depositing in the Temple, history is silent 
 concerning their fate for some hundreds of years. First 
 
 ο 2 
 
196 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 about the year 285 B.c., on the occasion of the prepara- 
 tion of the Alexandrian version, they came again into the 
 light. | 
 
 From this version it is clear that the Hebrew manu- 
 scripts from which it originated had been already deformed 
 by allegorical crotchets (sec. 95), but not yet supplied with 
 points throughout ; that they possessed neither separate 
 words (sec. 73), nor division into verses (sec. 97), nor 
 everywhere numeral words at length (sec. 90); but that 
 they were written with consonants, which agreed for the 
 most part in shape with our square alphabet, and in all 
 the kinds of various readings which have been hitherto 
 enumerated differed from our present text.! 
 
 Section 108.—.Negleet of the Original Text. 
 
 After the expiry of a century, the Alexandrian version 
 had come into almost general esteem, not only in Egypt, 
 but also in Palestine (sec. 166); reliance was placed on 
 it alone, and the Hebrew text consequently almost entirely 
 neglected. In order to justify this excessive use of the 
 Septuagint, the fable was invented that the Holy Spirit 
 rested on the translators in like manner as it had done on 
 the original authors. 
 
 ! The Tract. Megillah in the Babylonian Gemara, fol. 3, col. 1, speaks 
 of thirteen passages, which (in a copy (or version?) made for Ptol. 
 Philadelphus, of the Pentateuch) were intentionally altered. The 
 passages require only to be read to exhibit tangibly the mixture of 
 fables and errors. To save space I will not quote the entire long pas- 
 sage here. The meaning given to it by Ol. Gerb. Tychsen in the Tenta- 
 men, Ὁ. 48 ff., had received light from Michaelis in the Orient. and 
 Exegetical Bible, Part v. § 41 ff. Dresde also, in his Essay De locis 13 
 a Judeis in Codice Ebr@o Ptolemeéo regnante pretermissis (in his Triga 
 Commentationum academicarum), wished to elucidate the relations 
 mentioned, but in the execution of his design proceeded no farther than 
 the citation of the passage itself. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN VERSION 197 
 
 SECTION 109.— New Testament: Philo and Josephus. 
 
 Hence, with all authors at the time of the commence- 
 ment of our Christian era who use the Old Testament, the 
 Greek textofthe LXX lies at the root, and not that of the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 The New Testament quotes passages from the Old, 
 commonly from the Greek version,! and the commentaries 
 of Philo have reference always to its text. If he be in 
 pursuit of emphases, he raises them not in Hebrew, but 
 in Greek words. Josephus, finally, draws from it his 
 entire Jewish history; and departs from it only in the 
 article of chronology when the Hebrew suits his turn 
 better than the Greek.? 
 
 Philo divides, after his Greek manuscript, Moses into 
 five books (sec. 29) ; and since this division is probably as 
 old as the Alexandrian version, it may be well imagined 
 that it was so found by the translator in the Hebrew 
 exemplar employed by him. 
 
 In Josephus’ time it was customary to write the 
 manuscripts of the Old Testament on parchment; also 
 there existed at that time no law condemning manu- 
 scripts written on coloured parchment to the fire; for 
 
 1 See Koppii Novum Testam. vol. iv. excurs. i. ad Epist. ad Romanos, 
 where this is shown very clearly with regard to Paul’s epistles. Of the 
 quotations from Hosea this is shown by Steudlin in the Aids for the 
 Elucidation of the Bible Prophets, Parti. § 129 ff. Cf. the Gospels and 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and J. G. Hichorn’s General Libr. of Bibl. Lit. 
 Part ii. § 947 ff. 
 
 ? Michaelis is strongly inclined for the opinion that Josephus used 
 the Hebrew text in his historical works (that he was in possession even 
 of the Temple copy; see above, § 91). Compare Michaelis, Hast. and 
 Exeget. Bibl. Part v. in the supplement. Of most of the passages there 
 quoted, Scharfenberg in Prolusio de Josephi et Versionis Alexandrine 
 Consensu (Leips. 1780, 4) has proved the contrary, namely, that the Greek 
 version was their source. se below ($ 339 C.). 
 
198 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Josephus, in aid of the Alexandrian translators, causes 
 a copy of the Pentateuch, together with the pseudo- 
 Aristeus, to be made on coloured parchment in golden 
 letters, as if no objections against such writing mate- 
 rials were entertained.! Finally, Josephus reckons four 
 Hagiographa and thirteen Prophets (sec. 8), according 
 to a classification peculiar to him, and which rested on a 
 custom of his time, to refer all books which did not 
 originate with poets—in the strictest sense of the word— 
 to prophets. 
 
 Section 110.—Restoration of the Study of the Original Text. 
 
 Even after the birth of Christ, the excessive use of 
 the Septuagint continued for some time, in the polemical 
 strife between the Christians and Jews. Whereby the 
 Jews, being generally the losers, came gradually to detest 
 the Alexandrian version, and for that reason, as it seems, 
 reverted to the study of the Hebrew language and the 
 original text again. Now, amongst them new translators 
 of the Bible arose, and the Christians, not to be behind 
 them, laboured also in the production of new versions. 
 This was the immediate cause of the labours of an Aquila, 
 Symmachus, Theodosian, and the other Greeks with whom 
 we are still acquainted through the medium of Hexaplarian 
 fragments. 
 
 SECTION 111.—Corruptions of the Original Text by the Jews. 
 
 About this time the Jews must have deliberately falsi- 
 fied their sacred national writings, if this reproach so often 
 cast against them have any possible foundation. But how 
 is it to be reconciled with the high reverence they are 
 alleged to have entertained towards them (sec. 40, 57) ? 
 
 1. Before the birth of Christ they undertook no delibe- 
 
 1 Josephus, Antig. lib. xii .c. 2, § 11. 
 
THE ORIGINAL TEXT 199 
 
 rate corruptions of the original text, certainly; for they 
 had no motive so to do.! The Palestinian Jews were re- 
 proached, however, with having, before the birth of Christ, 
 5 B. Moses xxvii. 4, changed Gerizim into Ebal,? and 
 Is. xix. 18, Dann Wy (urbs solis) into DIN ὋΝ (urbs per- 
 ditionis); the first out of hatred to the Samaritans, in 
 order that the curse uttered should fall upon Gerizim, the 
 temple-hill of the Samaritans; the second from hostility 
 to their Egyptian brethren, to slur the city in which stood 
 the temple of the Egyptian Jews.3 But their innocence 
 is evident. On the mountain where the Jewish people 
 swore to the Law with cursings and sacrifices, the altar 
 behoved to be erected. This was the hill Ebal, and upon 
 it the Hebrew Jewish text makes the altar rightly to have 
 been built. On the other hand, upon the hill Gerizim, 
 upon which the Samaritan text makes the erection of the 
 altar, and over which a blessing had been spoken—for the 
 people swore not there with sacrifices, but answered only 
 Amen—no altar was to be expected. And in the second 
 place, a wilful alteration from hate to the Egyptian Jews 
 is still less to be imagined, for D\nn ‘YP is a literal transla- 
 tion of Leontopolis,> where the Jewish temple in Egypt 
 was built.® 
 
 2. After the birth of Christ the polemical rage of the 
 
 1 Even if Is. xix. 18, ΠΝ DN’ Dann Wy should be false, still 
 the words certainly did not come into the text by an intentional cor- 
 ruption. 
 
 2 Kennicott, Dissert. ii. c. 1, the Lat. Edit. 
 
 3 Starkii Carmina Davidis, t. i. p, 9. 
 
 4 Verschuir, ‘ Dissert. critica, qua lectio Hebrei codicis in loco celebri 
 Deuter. xxvii. 4, defenditur,’ in his Dissertationes Philologicoexe- 
 
 getice. Leovard and France, 1773, ἢ. 3. 
 5 Item in Dissert. de Dann wy in dissertationibus philologico-theolo- 
 
 gieis, τι. 19. 
 6 Josephi Antig. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 3. Compare Christian Müller, 
 
 Satura Observationum philologicarum, p.65. Cw ~ > signifies in Arabic a 
 lion, 
 
200 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Jews might have seduced them to corrupt passages used 
 by the Christians, in their disputes with them respecting 
 the already appeared Messiah, as proofs, in order to pre- 
 vent their being employed as such altogether, or at least 
 for the Christians. But then (1) they must have been 
 devoid of all understanding to change only the places 
 which speak in the least decisive way concerning the 
 Messiah, and to leave the most evident ones unaltered. 
 (2) And if the examination into the passages be proceeded 
 with, by which hitherto this accusation has been supported, 
 the appearances will admit of a much more natural ex- 
 planation without this supposition.! (3) Finally, the 
 Church Fathers, by whom these charges of falsifications 
 are cast upon them, impute to them always the corruption 
 of the Septuagint, and never of the original Hebrew text. 
 If now it be wished to support these accusations, which 
 have not hitherto been sufficiently proved, and to infer 
 from their alleged dealings with the Septuagint some 
 similar conduct with regard to the original text—what a 
 leap, and withal then merely a bare possibility ! 
 
 Section 112.—Hebrew-Greek Manuscripts. 
 
 About this time also the Christians began to apply 
 themselves to the study of the Bible in the original. 
 After the death of the Hebrew tongue even the Jews en- 
 countered difficulties sufficiently great in learning to read 
 the Hebrew Bible not supplied with points throughout ; 
 
 1 General German Libr. B. 35, ὃ 72; compare Starkii Carmina 
 Davidis, 1. c. The only passage where with any grounds an intentional 
 change for the purpose of depriving the Christians of a prediction of 
 the Messiah can be imagined is Ps. xxii. 17, in "85. But this read- 
 ing has been condemned by the most learned Jews, and the admission 
 made that they themselves have retained 44X35 in the Masora as the 
 better reading. Kennicott, in Dissert. Gener., is, however, still for in- 
 tentional corruptions of the Jews in many places, 
 
POLYGLOT VERSIONS 201 
 
 but to them they were lightened by means of their mother- 
 speech, the Syro-Chaldean. But for the Christians, who 
 understood no Chaldean, these difficulties were multiplied 
 a thousandfold. To lessen these, it seems, Hebrew Bibles 
 written in Greek letters, or Codices Ebreeo-Greeci, were 
 prepared. Hitherto this meritorious service has been 
 attributed to Origen; but a modern scholar has attempted 
 to prove that Codices Ebreeo-Greeci are older than Origen.! 
 
 Since the transcription of the Hebrew text in Greek 
 character was accompanied with many difficulties, the Alex- 
 andrian version was abundantly used in his labours by 
 the inventor of the Hebrew-Greek copy as a commentary. 
 Hence, for instance, Ps. cx. 3, he writes, Μηρεμ μεσσααρ 
 Nak Oar ιελεδεθεχ, that is, = apa by 96 Amen on), because 
 the LXX had rendered ἐκ yaorpos προ ἑωσφορου ἐγεν- 
 νήσασε 7R72) ὝΠΟ OI. 
 
 Section 113.—First Polyglot by Origen. 
 
 About the year 231 the first Polyglot was prepared 
 by Origen, and the first ground laid among Christians for 
 the critical elaboration of the Bible on the best principles. 
 His chief object, however, in this work was the critical 
 elaboration of the Septuagint; of this, not of the Hebrew 
 text, he made a new recension, and placed the Hebrew 
 text in the first column of his Polyglot, only for the pur- 
 pose of rendering more easy the comparison betwixt the 
 ancient translators. And hence is wanting all information 
 concerning the nature of his Hebrew text, and at present 
 we can merely refer to the Codex of Jerome in order to 
 ascertain the value of the Hebrew column in the Hexapla. 
 But if the text of the Septuagint were brought nearer to 
 its form in the Hexapla, that of itself would throw great 
 
 ’ See Ol. Gerb. Tychsen’s first appendix to the free Zentamen, ὃ 33 ff. 
 
202 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 light on the quality of the Hexapla Hebrew text. For 
 instance, Joshua xxi. 36, 37, in the Septuagint of the 
 Hexapla was marked with an obelus, as Mansius in his 
 Joshua remarks; consequently both verses must have been 
 wanting in the Hebrew text of the Hexapla, as in Jerome, 
 the Masora, and many modern manuscripts. On the other 
 hand, Ps. xviii. 14, wx ‘omy 712 stood in the Hexapla 
 Hebrew text, because Origen, on the assurance of Jerome, 
 substituted the Greek translation of these words with an 
 asterisk in the Septuagint.! 
 
 It is surprising, and, to most modern critics who are dis- 
 posed to concede a greater worth than they really deserve to 
 our still extant manuscripts, extremely offensive, to find the 
 Hebrew-Greek column of the Hexapla and the Hebrew text 
 used by Origen in his recension of the Alexandrinian revision, 
 almost everywhere agreeing with the Masora, where by the 
 more modern manuscripts it is deserted. 
 
 Proofs of this are afforded by all manuscripts of the 
 Septuagint in which its Hexapla text has in any degree 
 been correctly preserved. Bruns has often had occasion to 
 make this remark in the ‘Curis Hexaplaribusin iv. Librum 
 Regum’ (in the ‘ Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.’ Part ix. c. 10). 
 The following examples taken from his treatise will find their 
 proper place here :— 
 
 2 Kings vi. 20, now NPD ; many manuscripts add δὲ), which 
 Origen did not find there, hence he marks δὴ with an obelus. 
 
 ! Here are some examples. Because Origen in his Hebrew, as in our 
 Masoretical, text (1 B. Moses iv. 8) has nothing of the discourse between 
 Cain and Abel, so he marks with an obelus the addition in the LXX; 
 Διελθωμεν εἰς To πεδιον ἐν Tw Ἑ βραΐκῳ οὗ γεγραπται, he writes, Operum 
 t. ii. p. 30. Also he ‘obelises’ (quite agreeably to our Masoretical text) 
 kat εἶδεν ὃ Θεος ὅτ: καλον, which words cannot have stood originally in 
 Moses. See the Primitive History in the Repertorium for Bibl. and 
 East. Lit. Part iv. The great interpolation, 1 B. Sam. xvii., was already 
 to be found in the Hebrew manuscript of Origen. Compare Kennicott, 
 Diss. Gener. § 80. 2. 
 
POLYGLOT VERSIONS 203 
 
 2 Kings vill. 5, the present Masoretical text, nd NN ANT; 
 a modern codex (n. 174) has non MI NN ; Origen (according 
 to the Masoretical text) has marked with an obelus viov. 
 
 2 Kings viii. 16, the Masorites DV ; the éGp. Ἰωαραμ (con- 
 trary to the Oriental reading DW’, and which contradicts the 
 Masorites). 
 
 2 Kings ix. 4, the Masor. text W237 Ὕ"Σ)Π AWIN sb ; some 
 manuscripts leave the second Ἵ)Π out, which was, however, 
 found by Origen. 
 
 2 Kings x. 1, the Mas. text DYpt7 ; some codd. ὈΣΡΙΠΟΝ. 
 Origen obelises zpos (before τους πρεσβυτερους). 
 
 2 Kings x. 14, DM Diwan according to the Masora ; some 
 manuscripts leave the words out, because the same words 
 recur: the Hebrew text of Origen has them. * A, και συν- 
 eAaßovro atrovs ζωντας. 
 
 2 Kings xvi. 6, the Kethib Δ Υ Ὶ (the Syrian) confirms 
 Origen in the Syro-Hexaplarian codex by $0.03}. 
 
 2 Kings xviii. 17, the words of the Masoretical text 
 829 iby, which for many reasons there may be a disposition 
 to hold as interpolated, are in Origen * kaı ἀνεβησαν και ἦλθον 
 και ἐστησαν. 
 
 2 Kings xix. 23, 78 of the Masorites is confirmed by 
 Origen ; on the other hand, many modern manuscripts have 
 MIN. 
 
 Moreover, the Hebrew-Greek column in the Hexapla 
 was regarded as the most authentic and exact pattern of 
 the Hebrew-Greek manuscripts, and when Jerome wished 
 to obtain an exact text of the Hebrew-Greek transcript, he 
 corrected his manuscript of it out of the Hexapla in the 
 library at Cesarea.! 
 
 1 Hieronymi Comment. in Titum iii. 9. 
 
204 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 114.—Condition of the Hebrew Text between the 
 Third and Siath Century.—1. The Talmud. 
 
 About the middle of the third century we derive the 
 information that in the manuscripts of the entire Old 
 Testament the separate books followed each other exactly 
 in the order in which we have them in our present Bible 
 editions. The Talmud, for instance, which was compiled 
 after the year 220, divides the whole collection into three 
 parts, and enumerates eight Prophets and nine Hagio- 
 grapha. But probably this arrangement is of much older 
 date—older than the birth of Christ, and contemporary 
 with the compilation of the Old Testament (sec. 7, 8); 
 only we are deficient in express information on the subject 
 from earlier times. 
 
 Calligraphical rules were also already laid down for 
 transcribers, from whence it is as clear as the sun at noon- 
 day, that the consonants at that time had already attained 
 their complete present forms.! 
 
 The Talmud forbids, in the process of transcription, 
 the letters 2 and >» 1 and ¥ Ἵ and +7 and m Y and " 
 t and » Ὁ and >» and D to be confounded together. 
 Also it is acquainted with the final letters, and speaks of 
 a double Mem (9 and D). At that time also the Parashen 
 were marked in the manuscripts, and divided into open 
 and shut.? 
 
 1 Tychsen, Tentamen de variis Codicum hebraicorum V. T. generibus, 
 p.18. In the Tract. Gittin it runs: "pp $355 D537 ID pO! wnprd 
 aına ΠῚ pI Shs 232 ‘wy ynsdqd pains wow ‘2534 
 pha) a) mpd 53 "wa ΠῚ D’NBD- *‘ Manuscripts may be received from 
 strangers from all parts, if they are but written according to the Pat- 
 tern. When formerly a stranger at Sidon wrote manuscripts, their pur- 
 chase was permitted by R. Simeon, the son of Gamaliel.’ 
 
 ? See above, ὃ 79. Tract. Shabbath, fol. 103, 2, lin. 33. Tychsen, 
 Tentamen, Ὁ. 347. The passage then is as follows: δ ΠΣ ‘Nand 
 
 —_—. νων... 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT 205 
 
 Also a classification of manuscripts is already ventured 
 on by the Talmud, according to the different kinds of 
 transcribers, and the materials with which, and upon 
 which, the transcription was made, and the manuscripts 
 of monks, Sadducees, proselytes, &c., written with gold 
 and chequered colours, and on coloured parchment are 
 rejected.' Only I am not aware whether one may venture 
 to take for granted the real existence of all these kinds of 
 manuscripts at that time. The verdicts quoted appear to 
 me almost to belong to Talmudical casuistry, and as in- 
 tended to condemn the described manuscripts, in case such 
 should ever be prepared, to the fire, to the grave—in short, 
 to annihilation. 
 
 SECTION 115.—Critical Elaboration of the Bible by the Jews. 
 
 The controversy with the Christians had brought the 
 Jews again back to the study of the original text (sec. 110), 
 and this roused the spirit of criticism amongst them. It 
 is already told by the Talmud that the Jews collated manu- 
 scripts, and gave preference to the readings contained in 
 the greater number of them. ‘ Libri tres,’ it says, “inventi 
 
 pas por pas pms pads payy poy pads sins abo apn mans 
 ET iar TL a Li a πὶ Pie pnd po pwn ynds PDI Pry 
 POW] ΒΒ PAO POH PE POND Psy 139 PIT pT pay psy 
 POIND PMIND PAINS POND DD 320 325 jd PDD poiwp 
 nmnd πὸ" xd ΠῚ ΠΟ ΠῚ πο" xd ΠΠῚΠΒ ‘wp. ‘To write 
 manuscripts in a perfect manner care must be taken to write no x for 
 y, and no y for §; no 9 for 5; no ἢ for y, and no y for 3; no 2 for ἢ, 
 and no 5 for 4; no Π for m, and no [1 for Π; no ἢ for’, and no + for ἢ; 
 no + for 3, and no ὃ for}; no 9% for 5, and no 5 ford; no crooked 
 letters for straight; no 9 for Ὁ, and no Ὁ for ; no open Parash for 
 a shut one, and no shut Parash for an open one.’ 
 
 1 Tychsen, Tentamen, Ὁ. 10. 
 
 * Talm. Hieros. Tract. Taanith, fol. 68, col. 1. The passage appears 
 
206 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 sunt in atrio (templi), codex ‘Y2 (cognominatus), codex 
 Nut, et codex 8'7. Quorum in uno invenerunt scriptum 
 Dap ‘nx pwn Deut. xxxiii. 27, in duobus autem scriptum 
 erat 12) ΠΝ ; confirmarunt duos codices (consentientes) et 
 unicum rejicerunt. Similiter in uno invenerunt scriptum 
 et misit ‘Mivt, 1.6. magnates filiorum Israel; in duobus 
 autem scriptum erat Exod. xxiv. 5, "2, juvenes filiorum 
 Israel; confirmarunt igitur duos et unicum rejicerunt. 
 Porro in unico invenerunt scriptum N’n YwN, novem illa, 
 in duobus autem scriptum erat Mwy ΤΠ, undecim illa, 
 Genes. xxil. 23; quare duos ratos habuerunt et unicum 
 rejecerunt.’ 
 
 From such collations of manuscripts arose also the 
 critical revisions of the Hebrew text mentioned in the 
 Talmud. 
 
 SEcTION 116.—First Critical Revision of the Original Text : 
 BAD pn, Correctio Scribarum. 
 
 The first of the revisions of the Hebrew text is called 
 oad pipin, correctio scribarum. Besides the Talmud, this 
 is referred to by the Masora, and when by it spoken of in 
 general the number of corrected passages is reckoned at 
 eighteen ; but in the two places in 4 Book Moses i. 1 
 and Ps. evi. 20, where they are enumerated, only sixteen 
 of the eighteen passages promised are mentioned. 
 
 From the nature of the readings themselves, it is 
 
 in nearly the same words in the Coed. Sopherim, c. 6. According to the 
 Crat. edit. it runs: 45D) OY? ABD) MUB AAD ΠΣ INS AM ἃ 
 orp ‘nds may ain Duwar op ΠΡῸΣ ny ND INYD INNA Nn 
 ὩΣ ἸΔΊΩΨΙ ΓΝ mow sind wy Ina soos wba Dw wp) 
 ora ow nm Sw) 2 m ΠΝ nbon ains gwar bang» 
 
 NA Mwy MAN DNS DUDEN BT VEN JIN INYD INN) STAR 
 sins yma) Dw WO py. See Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. ὃ 34. 
 
REVISION OF ORIGINAL TEXT 207 
 
 evident that this recension had reference to a peculiar 
 class of faults which by means of transcribers had crept 
 into the text, and were discovered by the collation of 
 manuscripts. For the readings preferred by the authors 
 of this recension were already to be found with the old 
 Alexandrian translators. The corrections themselves, 
 thanks probably to the Masora, have been preserved down 
 to our times. Here are some samples :—! 
 
 False Reading. Correction of the Scribes. 
 1 Book Moses xviii. 22, mm mm ’y Ὁ omas, LXX, 
 Dan ρον 'p- Vulg., Onkelos, Pseudo- 
 Jonathan. 
 
 4 Book Moses xi. 15, *ny 2. pny 5, according to the LXX, 
 Vulg., Onkelos, Pseudo- 
 Jonathan, and both Sa- 
 
 maritans. 
 4 Book Moses xii. 12,190 and NEN and YW2 as the LXX, 
 wwa. Vulg., Onkelos, Pseudo- 
 Jonathan, both Samari- 
 tans. 
 1 Samuel iti. 13, mddon 05, ond mıbbpn, as the LXX. 
 
 Section 117.— Second Revision : BHD muy, Ablatio 
 Scribarum. 
 
 The Talmud, and after it the Masora, mentions another 
 critical revision of the Bible, by the name of OAD iby, 
 ablatio scriburum. This had reference, as may be seen 
 from the examples still extant, merely to the extirpa- 
 tion of the binding particle Ὁ in certain places where, in 
 the judgment of the revisers, it required to be removed. 
 The Masora remarks, however, on 1 Book Moses xviii. 9, 
 
 1 All these passages are found collected in Morinus, Zxereitt. Bibl. 
 lib. ii. exerc. xii., and in the new Edit. of Cappelli Critica Sacra, 
 Hale, 1755, ὃ 444 ff. Buxtorfii Lew. Talm. v. Ὁ), p- 2630. 
 
208 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 that the ablatio seribarum applies to five passages ; but no- 
 where enumerates them. They have been collected by 
 Buxtorf out of the holes and corners of the Talmud and 
 Masora, where they lay hid. They are the five fol- 
 
 lowing :—! 
 False Reading. 
 
 1 Book Moses xviii. 5, NN} 
 YaYnN. 
 
 1 Book Moses xxiv. 55, INN} 
 son. 
 
 4 Book Moses xii. 14, AS} 
 RDNN, ‘ Repert. for Bibl. 
 and East. Lit.’ Part iii. 
 sec. 116. 
 
 Ps. Ixviii. 26, 099319 INN). 
 Ps xxxvi,(j; TDDPDN. 
 
 Ablatio Scribarum. 
 
 AYN ANN, according to the 
 lesser Masora. 
 son “nx, as the lesser Masora. 
 
 RDNN ANN, according to the 
 Tract. Nedarim, fol. 17, 2, 
 and the Masora on Ps. 
 xxxvi. 7, and yet our 
 vulgar editions have NN}. 
 
 D333) INN. 
 
 TBV, according to the Ma- 
 
 sora. 
 
 Section 118.—Third Revision : Puncta Extraordinaria. 
 
 Farther, at the time of the Talmud, the extraordinary 
 points in manuscripts were already to be found, with 
 which, in our Bible editions and still extant manuscripts, 
 and as to the latter even in the form of small lines, fifteen 
 works are marked. They evidently do not belong to the 
 diacritical marks of the Bible; their object must have been 
 of a critical nature. 
 
 To distinguish by such points, words or letters sus- 
 pected by criticism, is agreeable to analogy; for they are 
 found employed even by Greek critics.? If, therefore, the 
 
 1 Tract. Nedarim, fol. 37, col. 2,1.18. See Morini Zxereitt. Bidl. 
 lib. ii. exere. xxii. c. 1, § 6, and the new edit. of Cappelli Critica Sacra, 
 p. 443. Buxtorfii Ler Talmud. v. "yy, p. 1597. 
 
 2 Blanchini Zvangeliar um IV.-plez, t.1. vol, ii. p. 502. 
 
CHANGES OF WORDS 209 
 
 passages be compared where these marks occur, this point 
 is as good as decided. For either the words and letters so 
 marked are even now condemned by critical witnesses, if 
 not perhaps by the very same persons who took as their 
 pattern the inventor of these points; or it is evident that 
 they may be left out, without injury either to the con- 
 nection or sense. And in the last case their sentence of 
 condemnation has probably been pronounced by critical 
 witnesses lost to our knowledge. Here are examples :— 
 
 Ps. xxvii. 19 xbi$ is wanting in the LXX, Vulgate, Arab., 
 
 and the Syrian. Ezek. xli. 20, 53:45 is wanting in the LXX 
 (the Arabian, Vulgate), and the Syrian. 4 B. Moses iii. 39 
 
 xxi. 30, wy; and YX without the Ἢ is expressed by both the 
 Samaritans and the Alexandrian. The other passages in 
 which the marks of condemnation have not survived the 
 ‘ hand of time are 1 B. Moses xvi. 5, xviii. 9, xix 33, xxxiii. 4, 
 xxxvil. 12; 4 B. Moses ix. 10, xxix. 15; 5 B. Moses xxix. 28; 
 2 Sam. xix. 20; Is. xliv. 9 ; Ezek. xlvi. 22. See Hüpeden’s 
 new probable conjectures respecting the true cause and signi- 
 fication of the extraordinary points (Hanover, 1751. 4). 
 
 SECTION 119.—Origin of the Kethib vela Keri and of the 
 Keri velo Kethib. 
 
 About this time also certain passages had been re- 
 marked by the Jews where, for the better illustration of 
 the sense, a word might be inserted, and also others where, 
 without injury to the sense, a word might be omitted. 
 For the first class they prepared a suitable supplement, 
 which they entitled Keri velo Kethib, 1.6. a word which 
 might be inserted (mentally), although not written in 
 the text. On the other hand, the superfluous word of the 
 second class was called by them Kethib velo Keri, ie. a 
 
 word, though to be found in the text, yet not necessary to 
 P 
 
210 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 the sense, and capable of omission in the reading. Of the 
 Keri velo Kethib, seven passages are noted by the Talmud, 
 namely: 2 Sam. yi. 9, avi. 28; der, xa, 96, 120s 
 Ruth ii. 3, ui. 5, 17. On the other hand, only five of the 
 Kethib velo Keri: namely, 2 Kings v. 18; 5 Book Mosesvi.1; 
 Jer. li. 3; Ezek. xlviii. 16; Ruth iii. 12.2 The words of 
 the second class are, of course, to be found, since they were 
 really in the text, even in the old translations, and in 
 Jerome ; on the other hand, of the first nothing is known 
 by Jerome, a strong proof, as it appears to me, that the 
 Keri velo Kethib in his time had not yet been added to the 
 Bible, and that it was afterwards done by the Masorites. ° 
 
 Section 120.—Keri and Kethib in the Talmud. 
 
 The Talmudists also were acquainted with the double 
 readings of at least some of the passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment preserved by the Masorites under the name Keri | 
 and Kethib; still the conclusion is not immediately to be 
 drawn that they were marked also in the margin of their 
 manuscripts. Thus, for instance, the Talmud cites Job 
 xiii. 15, Sn 5 sxbyp. in, and immediately adds: ‘ Pendet 
 tamen adhuc res (in dubio), num (sensus sit) ego sperabo 
 (bn ὍΣ an vero ego nons perabo’ (Spx xb, as the Kethib 
 purports.)? 
 
 As to the rest, the Talmud is divided between our 
 Keri and Kethib; sometimes it has our text, sometimes 
 our marginal readings; still the latter oftener than the 
 former. 
 
 In the printed Mishna the Keri is first quoted : Sota, c. 5, 
 sec. 5, Job xii. 15, 15; in the same, 6. 7, sec. 6,1", 3 Book 
 Moses ix. 22 ; in the same, c. 9, sec. 6, and Mass. Tamid. c. 7, 
 sec. 2, 22%, 5 Book Moses xx. 7 (English xxi. 5); Middoth, 
 
 1 Tract. Nedarim, c. 5, fol. 37, p. 2. 
 2 Tract. Sota, c. 5, § 5. 
 
THE VERSION MADE BY JEROME 211 
 
 c. 3, sec. 1, Seam, Ezek. xliii. 16 ; In the same, c. 4, sec. 4, 
 ΝΠ, 1 Kings vi. 6; Jadaim, c. 4, sec. 4, 423, Is. x. 13. (2) the 
 Kethib, on the other hand, Berachot, ce. 1, sec. 7, x5, 2 Book 
 Moses xxi. 8, as also Symmachus and Theodotion have it, but 
 the LXX the Keri 15; Jadaim, c. 4, sec. 4, Drymnyn, 
 da. x. 19. 
 
 At that time, finally, flourished in their golden age the 
 allegorical interpreters of the Old Testament ;! and if all 
 such their allegorical chimeras were marked in the manu- 
 scripts themselves by signs and caricatured letters of all 
 descriptions, numerous errors must have found their way 
 into the Hebrew text by that means. 
 
 SECTION 121.—2. Jerome: Critical Elaboration of the 
 Hebrew Bible at Tiberias about the Year 400. 
 
 But the critical labours of the Jews hitherto described 
 were but the forerunners of the dawn which broke on 
 Biblical criticism after the fifth century. At that time both 
 Jews and Christians did good service in the cause. Tiberias 
 was at that time in possession of the correctest manuscripts 
 and the most enlightened critics. Hence, when Jerome was 
 uncertain as to the accuracy of the text in the Book of 
 Chronicles, and was desirous of obtaining an accurate text of 
 them, particularly with regard to the nomina propria, before 
 he proceeded to the correction of the old Latin version, 
 he caused to come to him a Jew from Tiberias, collated 
 with him the text from beginning to end, and then first 
 began his version. ‘Cum a me,’ he writes in the preface to 
 the Books of Chronicles, ‘ nuper literis flagitassetis, ut vobis 
 librum Paralipomenon latino sermone transferrem, de Tibe- 
 riade quemdam legis doctorem, qui apud Hebreeos admira- 
 
 1 See the passage in Tychsen, Tentamen, &c., p. 197 ff.; also above, 
 $ 98, where I have cited out of the Talmud instances of readings pro- 
 
 duced by means of the Midrashim. 
 BP 2 
 
212 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 tioni habebatur, assumpsi et contuli cum eo a vertice, ut 
 alunt, usque ad extremum unguem, et sic confirmatus 
 ausus sum facere quod jubebatis.’ 
 
 Amongst the Christians the Hebrew Bible was studied 
 with the spirit of an Origen by Jerome; and he collated 
 all the ancient Greek authors of versions, as the Jews at 
 Tiberias did manuscripts. But since he had no imitators, 
 the critical elaboration of the Hebrew Bible by Christians 
 proved but a passing meteor. 
 
 Section 122.—Nature of the Manuscripts at that time. 
 
 Jerome, in his commentaries, lets fall occasionally, 
 here and there, data, out of which a sufficiently clear idea 
 of the character of the then existing manuscripts may be 
 formed. And since it may be admitted, that previous to 
 his time no great changes had been effected in the manu- 
 scripts—for it was not till after him that the critical 
 elaboration of the Bible by the Jews came into full opera- 
 tion—the picture he draws is undoubtedly that of the 
 external form of the Hebrew manuscripts about and 
 perhaps even before the birth of Christ. Hence it is worth 
 the pains to give here a short description of the character 
 of his manuscript. 
 
 SEcTION 123.—1. Extent. 
 
 Jerome’s manuscript contained all our books of the 
 Old Testament in the same order in which they follow one 
 another in our present Bible-editions ; he reckons, like the 
 Talmud, eight Prophets and nine Hagiographa (sec. 55). 
 Also the single books were of no greater extent than at 
 present. He speaks, however, seven times ‘de codicibus 
 hebraeis, qui multa de veteri legunt, que in nostris codi- 
 cibus non habentur.’ But in these passages he compares, 
 
SHAPES OF CONSONANTS 213 
 
 not Hebrew manuscripts with Hebrew, but with manu- 
 scripts of the LXX; he maintains on this occasion that 
 many citata from the Old Testament in the New may be 
 derived, not from the LXX, but from the Hebrew text, 
 and in another place (namely, in his commentary on 
 Is. xi. 1) recalls this opinion, after, by means of a careful 
 comparison of the New Testament with the Old, he had 
 become convinced of its unsoundness. Accordingly, in his 
 preface to the commentary on the Pentateuch, he says: 
 ‘In codicibus hebr&is multa legimus, que in nostris’ 
 (that is in the LXX) ‘non habentur, ut est illud Ex 
 Egypto vocavi fiium meum’ (Matthew ii. 15, compare 
 Hos. xi. 1, Hebrew 2, the LXX rexva adrov); ‘ et 
 Quoniam Nazarenus vocabitur’ (Matt. xi. 23, compare 
 Is. xi. 1, Hebrew 7¥3, the LXX avdos) ; ‘et Videbunt in 
 quem confixerunt’ (Joh. xix. 37, compare Zech. xi. 11, 
 Hebrew PT WS ns, the LXX ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχησαντο): 
 ‘et Flumina de ventre ejus fluent aque vive’ (John vii. 
 38, perhaps Prov. xvii. 41): ‘et Que nec oculus vidit, nee 
 auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascenderunt’ (1 Corinth. 
 ii. 9, compare Is. lxiv. 3): ‘ et multa alia’ (yet he is never 
 able to quote more than these five passages) ‘ quee proprium 
 συνταγμα desiderant. Interrogemus ergo eos, ubi hee 
 scripta sint, et cum dicere non potuerint, de libris Hebraeis 
 proferamus.’ 
 
 SECTION 124.—2. Consonants. 
 
 The consonants of his Hebrew manuscript in point of 
 figure coincided exactly with those in which our manu- 
 scripts are written ; he remarks the similarity of the shapes 
 of 7 and % of NM and m of 1 and " and so on; he is ac- 
 quainted with final characters, and mentions the likeness 
 between 7 and } D and D &c.! 
 
 1 Repertorium for Bibl. and Eastern Literature, Part iii. § 140. 
 
214 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 In his time also consonants in irregular shapes must in 
 some passages have been used, since shortly after his time 
 such are enumerated by the Masorites; I am not, however, 
 informed whether they are anywhere mentioned by Jerome. 
 
 Section 125.—3. Marks for Reading : Points. 
 
 Jerome found vowels in many passages, but his manu- 
 script does not appear to have been provided with them 
 throughout (sec. 68). 
 
 1. With our diacritical points he was altogether un- 
 acquainted. He knew nothing of the point over ¥ (᾽ and 
 ’); only three forms of the letter S were known to him: 
 ‘una que dicitur Samech, D et simpliciter legitur quasi per 
 S nostram literam describatur ; alia Sin, & in qua stridor 
 quidam non nostri sermonis interstrepit ; tertia Zadi, ¥ 
 quam nostri aures penitus reformidant.’ 
 
 2. He also knows nothing of Dagesh, at least nothing 
 of its alleged influence on the consonants NBIT12- Of 5 for 
 example, he declares the pronunciation to be everywhere 
 that of F; and when in a foreign nomen proprium D is used 
 for P, he remarks the pronunciation as a particular excep- 
 tion. ‘ Palestinorum,’ he writes on Is. 11. 5, “quasi Philis- 
 tinorum, quia P literam sermo hebraicus non habeat, sed 
 
 Morini Exereitationes Biblice, pp. 61 and 144. See Jerome on Genes. 
 iii. 1, ziv.5; Jer. xiii. 12; Hos. v. 13, ix. 7, 13; Zech. xii. 10 (past. 
 ad Sunniam, Ps. cxxx. 4; Pref. ad Libb. Samuel et Regg.). The pas- 
 sage, ‘Caligantibus oculis senectute, ad nocturnum lumen nequaquam 
 valemus Hebr&orum volumina relegere: que etiam ad solis dieique 
 fulgorem literarum parvitate nobis cecantur’ (Opp. iii. col. 842), is 
 always obscure. May not the modest man by ‘literarum parvitas’ 
 have meant his own learning ? Of reading-marks he could not: possibly 
 have dreamt. Michaelis understands by the expression small character 
 of the consonants, and supposes Jerome’s Hebr. Codex to have been 
 written in a kind of running hand, in which there are also modern 
 manuscripts to be found ($ 377; Orient. and Exeget. Bibl. Part xviii. 
 § 104). 
 
THE VERSION MADE BY JEROME 215 
 
 pro eo greco ᾧ utitur.’ And of i758, Daniel xi. 45; 
 ‘Notandum autem, quod cum P literam hebreeus sermo 
 non habeat, sed pro ipsa utatur 5 cujus vim grecum & 
 sonat, in isto tantum loco apud Hebreeos scribatur quidem 
 Β» sed legatur P (apatno). And if he doubles the con- 
 sonants which according to our present punctuation re- 
 quire the marks of duplication, this is still no reason for 
 his recognition of our points of duplication in these con- 
 sonants ; he was acquainted with the necessity from the 
 information he had obtained at various times from four 
 several Hebrew teachers, or from the Hebreeo-Greek codex, 
 revised by himself after the Hexapla at Cesarea, for the 
 purpose of having by him a fixed formulary of the Hebrew 
 
 pronunciation.! 
 
 SECTION 126.—4. Words and Division into Verses. 
 
 Here and there, not generally, as it appears, there was 
 a division of words in his manuscript (sec. 76) ; but of our 
 distribution into verses he was altogether ignorant (sec. 77), 
 also 1 have no recollection of reading in him any account 
 of our accent-marks. 
 
 Paragraph breaks were already found by him in his 
 Hebrew codex; but, as far as we know, not always 
 where in our editions paragraphs and chapters commence. 
 Amos vi. 9, for instance, he writes: ‘In Hebraicis alterius 
 hoc capituli exordium est; apud LXX vero finis supe- 
 rioris.’ 
 
 SECTION 127 a.—5. Critically Revised. 
 
 Finally, Jerome’s manuscript also underwent critical 
 revision. He found the puncta extraordinaria already 
 added; the readings in it adopted, introduced by the 
 emendatio scribarum ; perhaps also some Keri and Kethib 
 
 1 Hieronymi Comment, in Titum iii. 9. Zepert., &c., Part 111. § 142. 
 
216 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 were already noted. ‘Appingunt desuper, he says on 
 1 Book Moses xvii. 35 of the extraordinary points, 
 ‘quasi incredibile quid.’ Hos. ix. 12, 13 he read "wa, as, 
 according to the tradition of the Jews, the emendatio 
 scribarum purports, not 3, according to the LXX and 
 Theodotion. And Is. Ixiii. 9, he appears to have found 
 already the Keri and Kethib, xd and 15: mentioned by the 
 Masora at, for instance, 9 Book Moses xi. 21. For he 
 remarks on the cited passage of the prophet Isaiah, ‘In 
 omni tribulatione eorum non est tribulatus,’ ‘ quod hebraice 
 dicitur Ὃν 85 ony 592; negantis est adverbium, et pro 
 non legi potest 12 ---- 1.6. ipse, ut sit sensus, in omni 
 tribulatione eorum ipse est tribulatus.’ On the other hand, 
 Is. xlix. 5, he knows nothing of the reading », although 
 already expressed by Aquila; he even accuses Aquila of a 
 corruption of the text, for rendering 1? instead of xD. 
 
 Section 127 B.—6. In Readings little different from the 
 text of the Masora. 
 
 Finally, if we cast an eye over, in respect to the read- 
 ings, the really uncertain or apparently uncertain passages, 
 concerning which Jerome tells us expressly what he had 
 found in his Hebrew manuscript, he appears almost always 
 to keep close to the Masoretical text. If the new inter- 
 preters, together with the ancient authors of versions, 
 should read Hab. ii. 5, 0'133, Jerome’s manuscript is ex- 
 pressly for 0%32; Hab. ii. 17, he had the anomalous 
 nm, against which the voices of the old translators seem 
 to be for nn’. Yet for proof, extracts from a larger book, 
 Isaiah, may serve better.! 
 
 ı I hope, indeed, of the passages where Jerome has expressly cited 
 his Hebrew text in Isaiah, that few such have escaped me: in the 
 
 meantime, however, they have been merely collected by me as occasion 
 served. His codex appears to me, if I may trust my observation, only 
 
THE VERSION MADE BY JEROME 217 
 
 Is. vill. 9, LXX v7 ; Jerome as at present vn, 
 
 Is. xiv. 32, LXX on ; Jerome as Masor. text "ΝΡ. 
 
 Is. xxiv. 23, LXX ADIN; Jerome as the Masor. text pn. 
 
 Is. xxvii. 1, LXX mp7; Jerome as the Masor. text 
 mwpn. 
 
 Is. xxviii. 9, LX X AY; Jerome as the Masor. text nv". 
 
 Is. xxxiii. 7, Jerome nds undivided as the Masor. text. 
 
 Is. xxxviii. 14, LXX, Theodotion, Symmachus iy D'D ; 
 Jerome and Aquila as the Masor. text \4y DID. 
 
 Is. xliv. 28, LX X 7 ; Jerome as the Mas. text N. 
 
 Is. xlvii. 2, LXX ynSpw, and with like variations other 
 ancient translators ; Jerome as the Mas. text 1nny. 
 
 hota: | 5 x5 without Keri. 
 
 In short, it may confidently be taken that Jerome’s 
 Hebrew codex is as true to the Masora as even a more 
 modern Spanish manuscript, and such are known more 
 exactly than others to coincide with the Masora. 
 
 At least, against the many passages which do not vary 
 from the Masoretical text, the few where the opposite is 
 the case are of no importance, and can pass only for 
 exceptions. 
 
 The examples are: 1 B. Moses xiv. 5, now Dn3; 
 Jerome: ‘ LXX ἅμα. αὐτοις putaverunt scribi per He; per 
 Heth in presenti scriptum est (073) ;’ as also seven Sama- 
 ritan manuscripts with Kennicott have it. Ps. xxxv. 10 
 now MM once; Jerome: ‘Sciendum, quod multa -sunt 
 exemplaria apud Hebraos, que ne semel quidem Domi- 
 num habent.’ Ps. Ixxviii. 69 now y°83; Jerome: ‘in 
 Hebrx&o εἰς τὴν ynv’ (γ 3). Ps. Ixxix. 1 now Ὁ»: 
 
 in two instances to swerve from our Masoretical one, and even in these 
 passages the matter is not certain. Is. xix. 18, it had, perhaps, DAN. 
 In this case Jerome, however, remarks immediately below, that in other 
 manuscripts of his day ὨἽΠ was to be found; not, indeed, as a 
 reading of manuscripts themselves, but only as a conjecture of certain 
 Jews. 
 
218 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Jerome: ‘in Hebreo Liin’ (Pb). Ps. cii. 7 now DW; 
 Jerome: ‘in Hebr&o Bos’ (D12, a mere erratum). Ps. cxxx. 
 4 now NUN ; Jerome: ‘in Hebr&o thira’ (δ ὙΠ), merely an 
 erratum.! Theod. et Symm. min vowos. Hos. v. 13 now 
 2%; Jerome: ‘Pro eo, quod nos exponimus Jarib, 2%,’ 
 merely a variety in spelling, ‘ alii male legunt Jarim’ (ao). 
 Amos iv. 13 now inv-nd; Jerome: ‘ Etsi LXX verterint 
 χρίστον αὐτου ex 1109, tamen (he says) literas esse NW 70’ 
 (only a difference in orthography). Hab. ii. 19 ΠΥ 551; 
 ‘Sciendum, in quibusdam Hebr. voluminibus non esse 
 additum omnis sed absolute spiritum legi.’ Habak. iii. 2 
 now Ann; Jerome: ‘In Hebreeo legimus Heinu’ (13"N, which, 
 however, also according to the sense, may be the same 
 thing with our 1"). Zephan. ii. 9 now pow ON - 
 Jerome: ‘ Lolam’ (obwb).? 
 
 SEcTION 128.—Chaldean Paraphrases. 
 
 About this time the knowledge of the Greek language 
 amongst the Jews was already lost, and the Greek versions 
 were become nearly useless to them. Hence a progress 
 was made to versions in the Chaldean tongue, which soon 
 acquired such consideration as to become the universal 
 resort of the Jews in their study of the Bible; after the 
 Chaldean paraphrases in the sequel even the Hebrew text 
 was pointed, accented, and corrected. 
 
 ! Zech. v. 6, where he wishes to explain how the LXX came to the 
 reading DJYY, which they, as he thinks, have instead of DJ’y, because 
 they render ἀδικία αὐτων, he expresses himself with regard to the origin 
 of this error as follows: ‘Hic error frequenter inolevit, ut quia ἡ et 9 
 litere eadem forma, sed mensura diversz sunt, altera legatur pro 
 altera.’ 
 
 2 In Kennicott, Diss. Gener. ὃ 84. 13, these instances are also to be 
 found ; I do not think that a gleaning of many more is capable of being 
 made. 
 
THE MASORA 219 
 
 Section 129.—Masora : Establishment of the Reading 
 as to the Consonants. 
 
 About the commencement of the sixth century, the 
 reading of the Hebrew text as to the consonants was fixed 
 through the Masora, for which we are indebted to the 
 critics at Tiberias. They removed the errors which had 
 crept into the original text down to their times, so far as 
 was feasible and to the best of their abilities, with the aid 
 of the critical apparatus invented by them from their 
 ancestors and offered for their use by the times. This 
 critical work was the foundation upon which the Jews of 
 the next succeeding generation continued to build; it was 
 the book of Collectanea, in which they introduced their 
 new critical observations, but, alas, without evidence where 
 the chief work stopped and the additions began ; in short 
 the first chief Masoretical recension became so thoroughly 
 mixed up with modern recensions, as to render a separa- 
 tion out of the question. 
 
 Thus subsequent to the sixth and the next following 
 centuries, all kinds of remarks on the number of verses, 
 words, and consonants, on particular phenomena in verses 
 and points (reading-marks), were reduced to paper. These 
 materials, as well as the Tikkun and Ittur Sopherim, and 
 words with extraordinary points, Keri and Kethib, Keri 
 velo Kethib and Kethib velo Keri, and Piska were recorded 
 in extenso, at first in certain books, afterwards written on 
 the margins of Hebrew manuscripts—at first, however, in 
 an abridged form with many abbreviations, but subse- 
 quently in extenso by the aid of all sorts of liberties (see 
 the section on the Masora, sec. 140-158). 
 
220 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 130.—Influence of the Masora on the Manuscripts. 
 
 The influence of the Masora on the external and inter- 
 nal condition of the Hebrew manuscripts was considerable. 
 Previously their margin was clear, subsequently crowded 
 with numerous variations; formerly a manuscript alone 
 was the model in his corrections for a reviser, but now a 
 manuscript in connection with a Masora. But in con- 
 sequence of the inconvenient method in which the latter 
 was composed, it has never been found possible to amend 
 a manuscript in all respects conformably to the Masora. 
 
 Section 131.—Comparison of the Manuscripts in Palestine 
 and Babylon. 
 
 In the eighth century a collation was made of the text 
 of the Old Testament usual in the West (that is, in Pales- 
 tine) with the Oriental (that is, the text in use at Babylon), 
 and the result of this collation was the Oriental and Western 
 readings, said first to have been printed by Jacob Ben 
 Chayim, without, however, indicating the source of their 
 derivation. Probably the two flourishing academies in 
 the East and the West; at Babylon and Tiberias, sent each 
 other the most exact copy possible of their text as fixed 
 by each, and thereupon differences were discovered in from 
 218 to 220 passages. None of these variations are from 
 the five Books of Moses ; all have reference to consonants ; 
 only two mention a 7 raphatum, Jerem. vi. 6, ΠΝ, Amos 
 ili. 6, n®y. Hence it is conjectured that this collation was 
 made at a time when our present punctuation was not yet 
 introduced—in about the eighth century—and that probably 
 the two remarks concerning the 4 raphatum, which sup- 
 pose a pointed text, were, at some later period, interpolated 
 into this collection of variations. 
 
POINTS AND ACCENTS FIXED 221 
 
 As to the text, the various readings here collected do 
 not by any means affect the sense, but concern only ortho- 
 graphy, form of the word, and other trifles. And since in 
 our common Bible-editions the Eastern reading for the 
 most part is adopted, either the Oriental text itself must 
 have obtained the preference amongst the Western Jews, 
 or our Bible-editions were accidentally derived from such 
 manuscripts as followed the Oriental revision. 
 
 In proof I will quote the three most considerable readings 
 of this collection: 1 Sam. xv. 6, Western {py JE DIN 15, 
 Orient. way; 1 Sam. xviii. 25, West. 7892 "3, East. ANDI ON 2; 
 2 Sam. xvi. 3, West. 7'737, East. 3927 in the singular.! 
 
 SECTION 132.—Completion of our present Pointing and 
 Accentuation : Fixing of the Reading as to the Points. 
 
 Between the eighth and tenth centuries our present 
 system of points and accents was introduced, and on this 
 occasion the word-division was perfected which had been 
 begun at some earlier period. Already in the earliest 
 times the pronunciation of ambiguous words had been 
 fixed by simple signs; now the finer shades of sound were 
 more precisely indicated by peculiar signs, and its pronun- 
 ciation attached to every word (sec. 70). Accents had 
 been already applied to songs which had been set to 
 music (sec. 71); now entire books of the Bible were cut 
 up into verses, and the accent-figures increased by some 
 new ones, and the quantitas relativa referred to them 
 which they now indicate. Both labours advanced the 
 general division into words. But how many Jews did 
 good service in our present system of pointing and accen- 
 -tuation has not been recorded by history. 
 
 1 Cappelli Crit. Sac. lib. iii. c. 17. Zeibich, De Dissensionibus Orient. 
 et Occident.in Oehlrich. Coll. opuseull. t. ii. 
 
222 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 We find merely information concerning the termina- 
 tion of this labour on the readings mentioned by Rabbi 
 Ben Asher and Rabbi Ben Raftali. 
 
 Both, about the year 1034, were at the head of high 
 schools of the Jews; Ben Asher of the Academy at 
 Tiberias, and Ben Raftali of that at Babylon; both appear 
 to have put the last hand to the Masoretical punctuation, 
 and to have conferred together respecting doubtful pas- 
 sages. At least their readings have a mutual reference. 
 Thus, for instance, Song of Songs viii. 6, Rabbi Ben Asher 
 proposes to read mn Iw in one word; on the other hand, 
 Rabbi Ben Raftali will have it divided into two words. 
 
 Section 133.—Destruction of the Ancient Manuscripts. 
 
 Thus then, by the contributions of so many centuries, did 
 the Hebrew text finally attain the shape, internal and ex- 
 ternal, presented by its manuscripts now before our eyes. 
 Now it was no longer necessary, in reading, painfully to 
 separate word from word, or to be troubled with thoughts 
 about the punctuation ; the preparation of the manuscripts 
 was as convenient for the reader as possible. Is it then 
 a matter for astonishment if the ancient manuscripts, so 
 awkward in use, were resigned to decay? if no more 
 copies were made after the antique form, and the modern 
 shape was preferred ? and if now no manuscript is extant 
 of greater antiquity than 800 years?! 
 
 Truly the manuscripts of the ancient pattern were 
 worthy of preservation for the sake of their critical value. 
 But at that time criticism was regarded in a different 
 point of view from that of our days. The Jews believed 
 themselves to have furnished manuscripts better, and con- 
 
 1 Of this opinion is also Michaelis in the Orient. and Eweget. Bibl. 
 Part xviii. § 102. 
 
OLD MANUSCRIPTS SUPERSEDED 223 
 
 taining more information, than those of their ancestors, 
 and to have imparted to the former all that was valuable 
 in the latter; they were flattered also at beholding the 
 manuscripts of their creation adopted and preferred. How 
 probable then, under such circumstances, is the disuse and 
 neglect of the older manuscripts. And even if at first 
 they were held in estimation, would they not necessarily 
 experience in themselves their own destruction if no 
 further copies of them were made ? 
 
 SEcTION 134.—Fate of the Hebrew Text till the Invention of 
 Printing.—1. Alterations made in vt after the Targums. 
 
 Here properly ends the history of the written text; 
 for the chief work was accomplished, and the Hebrew text 
 continued now, some insignificant changes excepted, true 
 in all its copies, to its once-for-all established pattern, as 
 is clear from Kennicott’s ‘ Collection of Variations.’ 
 
 1. In the meantime if the elder Masorites had suffered 
 a reading to remain, opposed to the Chaldean Bible-version, 
 the learned possessor of a manuscript altered it so as to 
 make its text correspond with that version. ‘l'hus many 
 manuscripts were made to conform in point of punctuation, 
 word-division, and the reading of the consonants with the 
 Chaldean paraphrase; other manuscripts, on the contrary, 
 propagated the other readings which varied from it. As 
 often then as manuscripts in this wise are different, strong 
 suspicion of a later modification must arise, which sooner 
 or later the special criticism of the Old Testament will 
 confirm. See the section on the Targums. 
 
224 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 135.—2. Alterations made in it in deference to 
 Grammar. 
 
 After so much previous labour and the collection of 
 so many separate grammatical remarks on the Hebrew 
 language, finally Rabbi Soadias Gaon, teacher in the Aca- 
 demy at Babylon (f 924), ventured the first attempt at a 
 Hebrew Grammar, which, by the repetition of such at- 
 tempts, was soon brought to perfection. In its application 
 to single passages of the Old Testament, expressions were 
 necessarily met with which would sustain no grammatical 
 ordeal, because the language of the authors of the Old 
 Testament was not always grammatically correct. Now, 
 in deference to grammar, 5% was changed into 17%, 
 1 Chron. 11. 48, and 4 Book Moses xxvii. 7, 7°38 into 
 NIS, respecting which Kennicott’s Bible mentions the 
 manuscripts. As often as our manuscripts differ in such 
 cases, the correction of a later period is to be suspected. 
 
 SECTION 136 4.—3. Alterations of it in deference to celebrated 
 Manuscripts. 
 
 Finally, in order to be certain of the greatest possible 
 accuracy of the copies taken, exemplars were selected, 
 celebrated for their correctness, either when the copies 
 were being made, or, if that was not possible, as a means 
 of correcting the copies subsequently. Of this kind was 
 
 1. Hillel’s manuscript, which, even if it were from the 
 hand of an impostor and merited no critical estimation, 
 yet, from the name of the man assigned to it, had obtained 
 high consideration. For its author is uncertain. Some 
 Jews derive it from Hillel, who is said to have lived 
 100 years before the birth of Christ; others from Hillel 
 the Prince, who about the year 540 was famous in Pales- 
 
ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS 225 
 
 tine. Morin, on the contrary, will not allow it a greater 
 . antiquity than 500 years. Kimchi in the thirteenth, and 
 R. Zaduk in the fifteenth century, mention it as still 
 extant.! 
 
 2. A Babylonian manuscript abundantly referred to by 
 the Rabbins in their writings. Perhaps their reference is 
 to a recension, executed by R. Ben Raftali, teacher of the 
 Academy at Babylon (sec. 131). 
 
 3. A manuscript of ‘Israel’ is mentioned by the 
 Rabbins. This possibly contained the recension of R. 
 Ben Asher in Palestine (sec. 131), and is the same with the 
 codex elsewhere termed the Manuscript of Jerusalem. 
 
 4, From an Egyptian codex, brought from Jerusalem 
 to Alexandria, the ‘open’ and ‘shut’ Parashen were 
 apportioned by Maimonides. It was written at Jerusalem, 
 corrected (as reported) by R. Ben Asher, and served as 
 an exemplar in Egypt for the revision of manuscripts. 
 Maimonides himself made a copy of the Pentateuch from 
 it.? 
 
 5. Sinai was the name of a codex of the Pentateuch, 
 held in esteem for its extraordinary accuracy in the punc- 
 tuation.? 
 
 6. The Pentateuch of Jericho was esteemed the most 
 accurate manuscript in the application of the matres 
 lectionis (of the plenarum and defectivarum).4 
 
 7. Codex Sanbuki, which, together with Hillel’s manu- 
 script, is quoted on the margin of a manuscript of Richard 
 
 1 Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. ὃ 56; Hottinger in Thes. Phil. 1. c., 
 who speaks also of the other celebrated manuscripts. 
 
 2 Kennicott, Dissert. General. § 54, 
 
 8 Tychsen, Tentamen, p. 215. 
 
 * Hottinger in Thesaurus Philologicus, pp. 106-110. Joh. Heinr. 
 Michaelis De Codicibus Erfurtensibus, p. 35, conjectures that the critics 
 who in the margins of manuscripts mention this famous MS. had 
 before them merely excerpts from the same. 
 
 Q 
 
226 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Simon, and cited also by Menachem de Lonzano in the 
 Or Thora and Norzi in the Mantuan Bible (sec. 374). 
 
 8. Liber Taggin (j'38N) placed by the side of the Rabbi 
 Jacob Ben Chayim’s preface to his edition of the most 
 accurate manuscripts; but which went no further than 
 the Pentateuch. 
 
 SECTION 136 B.—T’he most famous Jewish Critics in Europe. 
 
 Till the commencement of the eleventh century Jewish 
 schools flourished in the East, in particular in Palestine 
 and at Babylon, which beyond all others appear to have 
 distinguished themselves by their meritorious services on 
 the Bible, since every trace of critical labours on the 
 Old Testament, as the Masora, the Oriental and Western 
 Readings, and those of Rabbi Ben Asher and Rabbi Ben 
 Raftali down to the eleventh century, is derived from 
 those quarters. But about A.c. 1040, the Eastern Jews 
 were compelled by the Arabs to seek out other settle- 
 ments. A great part of them fled to Europe, espe- 
 cially to Spain, which from that time became the true 
 seat of the critical study of the Bible, and the native soil 
 of the correctest manuscripts of the Old Testament. From 
 this centre, the science of criticism became extended 
 amongst the Jews in Germany and Italy, and in the twelfth 
 century Solomon Jearchi (at Treves,f 1180 or 1211) and 
 David Kimchi (+ about the year 1240), in point of learned 
 and critical acquaintance with the Bible, were competent 
 to vie with an Abu Ezra (at Toledo, { 1174 or 1190) and 
 Maimonides (of Cordova, who afterwards lived in Egypt, 
 + 1201 or 1205). However imperfect hitherto our infor- 
 matıon concerning their critical views may be, since an 
 entire account of them has not been presented from their 
 works, it is, however, certain that for the most part they 
 
JEWISH CRITICS 227 
 
 result ! from sound principles, although not free from the 
 superstitious credulity and manifold superstitious fancies 
 of their nation.2 They disputed about division? and 
 punctuation ? of words in the manuscripts of their time; 
 made a different division into verses than the usual one; 
 adhered to those manuscripts which had the reputation of 
 the nicest accuracy,® and consulted the famous manuscripts 
 of the olden time, such as those of an Ezra, of a Hillel, 
 and others, either immediately, or by means of extracts 
 from them.’ 
 
 Still about their time the copyists must have fallen 
 into a carelessness which their early predecessors had 
 endeavoured with anxious industry to avoid; at least, the 
 abundant deviations of the modern manuscripts from the 
 ancient induced the learned Meyer Hallevi, of Toledo 
 
 ! Abu Ezra, for instance, says in his preface to the Pentateuch, that 
 the placing of the matres lectionis is left to the discretion of the 
 copyists : ὮΝ.) MIN IDM Oy: ANID axdon 217° SYS: Ayia ys 
 mdse it tie the scribe writes at one time, for the sake of clearness, 
 a word plene, at another time he suppresses the consonants (} or "), 
 for the sake of brevity.’ 
 
 2 On 2 B. Moses xxv. 31 Abu Ben Ezra says of mAwyn, that the ‘»’ 
 which in the French, Spanish, and other MSS. of his time was wanting, 
 had been already found and noted by the Masorites; and that it was 
 intended to mean the number 10. Still, on the sound principles con- 
 cerning the placing of the matres lectionis in the preface to the Pen- 
 tateuch, how could he here judge so erroneously! See Kennicott, 
 Disser. Gener. § 52. - 
 
 3 Abu Ezra, Ps. cexxiii. 4, will have 54 Εν, read as one word; 
 Yemkhi, on the contrary, is for the division into two. 
 
 4 Compare Ol. Gerb. Tychsen’s extracts from Rashi, Butsovian 
 Leisure Hours (Bützovische Nebenstunden), Part ii. § 65, ff., and 
 Eichorn’s Repert. for Bib. and East. Lit. Part i. 
 
 5 Abu Ezra relates that R. Mose Cohen divided many verses dif- 
 ferently. R. Simon, Histoire Critique du N.T. liv. i. ch. 28. 
 
 ® They speak always of thoroughly corrected manuscripts (D»74)))), 
 which were held by them in much higher repute than those that had 
 the reputation of being merely accurately mritten (DYEYN). 
 
 7 See the passages, ὃ 136. 
 
 ῳ 2 
 
228 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 (Haramah), at the commencement of the thirteenth cen- 
 tury, to undertake a critical work for the purpose of 
 clearing the Pentateuch from the gross blunders of the 
 modern transcribers." He complains in it that the manu- 
 scripts of his day are often in contradiction with the 
 Masora; yet, judging from his own showing, more in the 
 insertion and omission of the matres lectionis than in the 
 change of consonants, which, however, also occurs not 
 unfrequently. Remarkable it is, however, that according 
 to his own account the older the manuscripts the less 
 their variations from the Masora; hence, also, the oldest 
 manuscripts are always preferred by him. Less trust 
 might perhaps be placed in the decision of the learned 
 Rabbin if the same observation were not forced on the 
 notice in the perusal of the Hebrew manuscripts still 
 extant; and the oldest manuscript of the Pentateuch, for 
 instance, with the date 1144 (Kennicott, No. 293), which 
 in Haramah’s time was already a hundred years old, keeps 
 not very close to the Masora, and, whenever the modern 
 codices vary, coincides with the readings found by Hara- 
 mah in elder manuscripts. 
 
 Amongst the modern Jews R. Menachem de Lonzano 
 
 1 The title is „nd Sp ΠΟ "Ὁ, Liber Masore Sepis Legis. An 
 account of this work is to be found in Bartoloceii Bib. Rabdin. t. iv. 
 p. 20; Wolfii Bib. Hebr. t. i. p. 746, ii. p. 536; Fabricy, Titres 
 Primitifs, Ὁ. ii. p. 354. The most important information is given by 
 Bruns, 4d Kennicott. Dissert. General. § 57. A shorter account with 
 some corrections by De Rossi, Ad Varias Lect. V. 7. t. i. proleg. ὃ 36. 
 It was used by the Jews for a long time only in manuscript, or by 
 R. Menachem de Lonzano and Salom. Norzi. Finally it was printed 
 in small folio by a Polish Jew, Jacob Levita, from a MS. of a learned 
 Rabbi, Israel Benjamin Bassani, at Florence in 1750. A copy of it 
 was printed, not without errors, Berlin, 1761. The author, according to 
 an abbreviation usual amongst Jews, is generally called Haramah, 
 =» "An: De Rossi calls him always Todrosius, because his father’s 
 name was Todros. 
 
JEWISH CRITICS 229 
 
 and Solomon Norzi have particularly distinguished them- 
 selves by their critical labours on the Old Testament. 
 
 R. Menachem de Lonzano performed a special journey, 
 assisted on the occasion by letters of recommendation from 
 his brothers in the faith, especially the Jews of Constanti- 
 nople, for the purpose of collating Hebrew manuscripts 
 of the Pentateuch, and published his extracts in a 
 work entitled the ‘Or Thorah.’! With the edition 
 of Bomberg of the year 1544 (in quarto) he com- 
 pared ten, chiefly Spanish, manuscripts, of which some 
 were 500, others 600 years old. Still older than the 
 rest were two codices of Jerusalem: one 540 years old, 
 another still older, and certainly belonging to the eleventh 
 century, but without a date. He cites also in the text of 
 the work the celebrated codices of Ezra, Hillel, Jerusalem, 
 Jericho, and Egypt, German manuscripts, and others 
 written in Arabia. The Jews of Constantinople, by means 
 of their letters of recommendation, promoted his object, 
 because the editions of the Old Testament, which had 
 hitherto appeared then, with respect to the matres lectionis, 
 and the readings resulting from parallel passages, were 
 not suitably adjusted, and because, even in the manu- 
 scripts of the Masora, many errors were to be found. 
 
 Solomon Norzi, finally, has left all Jewish critics far 
 behind him, as well with regard to the extent of his work 
 as the correctness of his judgment. (See sec. 402.) 
 
 1 aan WN, at first printed in Δ) nw, Venice, 1618, 4to., a scarce 
 piece, but printed, not quite correctly, at Amsterdam, 1659. Compare 
 
 Kennicott in Dissert. Gener. ὃ 61; De Rossi, Prolegom. ad Vurias 
 Lectt. V. T. t. i. § 37. 
 
230 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 SECTION 186 c.—General Judgment concerning the Present 
 Condition of the Hebrew Text. 
 
 These fragments of the history of the Hebrew text 
 appear to present a very advantageous view of its present 
 state. Never, since the birth of Christ, was so much in- 
 dustry exerted on a work of antiquity as on the copies of the 
 books of the Old Testament ; reverence towards them and 
 superstition had, already in the earliest times, prescribed 
 laws for the copyists, difficult in their observance even for the 
 most patient industry, which must, however, have secured 
 the Hebrew text from many perils to which it would have 
 been otherwise exposed, and without which the oldest and 
 best amongst the modern manuscripts would be far more 
 removed in their readings from those found by Jerome 
 and Origen in their manuscripts in the third and fifth 
 centuries (secs. 113, 121). Also in the centuries before 
 Christ, the industry and accuracy of the Jews could be 
 scarcely less energetic and patient. The First Book of 
 Moses and Job were from the first transcribed with such 
 religious fidelity, that even then the names of God, 
 mr’ and ods, with regard to which exchanges were so 
 probable and pardonable, are most correctly applied, as 
 may with the highest degree of probability be shown, and 
 in the later books of the Old Testament a newer ortho- 
 graphy prevails which, in those where greater antiquity 
 can be demonstrated, is not at all to be found. 
 
 In the meantime, notwithstanding this industry, it is 
 impossible to deny that many passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment have come down to our times very incorrectly. 
 Many, without much difficulty, admit of remedy, since they 
 are of Jater origin, and the means of correcting them are 
 still in our hands. Although in Job xii. 9 min? is printed, 
 which can be God’s name only in the prologue and 
 
VALUE OF HEBREW TEXT 231 
 
 epilogue, and which should not occur in the poem itself, 
 still we possess manuscripts which contain the right read- 
 ing ‘278; for 197, Is. xvi. 9, the parallel passage Jerem. 
 xlviii. 32, still gives the correction ὙΦ, and for In, 
 Zeph. ii. 14, the parallel passage, Is. xxiv. 11, again 
 supplies the more correct 2, &c.! 
 
 But in another, alas! and far greater multitude of 
 passages, the application of criticism is of much greater 
 difficulty. The errors are manifest, but their rectification 
 is so much the more uncertain, as all extant aids towards 
 the correction of the Hebrew text agree in upholding them. 
 Undeniable it is that 1 B. Moses xxxvi. 31-36 a series 
 of names is interpolated; that, however, the Samaritan 
 text contains the interpolated names which belong else- 
 where, and that this insertion goes back to the most 
 remote antiquity must strike with extreme surprise. In 
 the alphabetical Psalms (as e.g. Ps. xxvi. 6, 18) entire 
 verses are wanting, which also not asingle ancient version, 
 to say nothing of manuscripts, has preserved; who will 
 now attempt to restore them? The genealogies, 1 Chron. 
 11. 19, 24, were, in the earliest times, even before the com- 
 mencement of our critical aids to the Old Testament, in- 
 creased by many names which the authors of the books 
 could not possibly be acquainted with; how far does the 
 text go which is from the hand of the author ? Job xiv. 11, 
 half or an entire verse fell off at so early a period, and 
 Job xl. 32 was so early transposed with xli. 3, that we 
 can come to the help of both passages with conjectures 
 merely.” Still more, in many books, sometimes greater, 
 sometimes less, errors are found asin nests; and by their 
 
 1 More passages of the kind are collected by Kennicott in Disser. 
 Gener. § 48, to whose decision, however, I cannot always assent. 
 
 2 § 437, and in other places of this work, instances of another kind 
 will be adduced. 
 
232 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 side other books which have come down to us so faithfully 
 and so accurately that the present condition of the first 
 remains an insoluble riddle, unless we may venture to 
 suppose that such passages, beyond the help of all existing 
 remedies, are derived from the exemplar which the com- 
 pilers of the Old Testament after the Babylonian exile 
 placed in their library. - 
 
 Where the still extant fragments of the Old Testa- 
 ment were collected after the Babylonian captivity, there 
 existed perhaps only a single copy of many authors, 
 which on one occasion had suffered much from the inferior 
 quality of the writing materials used in making it, and 
 was here and there faded away, and upon another was 
 perhaps, as the property of a merely private family, hastily 
 written and not with the greatest accuracy. Many 
 writings of the Old Testament were, perhaps earlier or 
 later, either before or after the Babylonian captivity, taken 
 down from the mouths of the people, and the true sense 
 was become here and there doubtful. Now the compilers of 
 our canon, who brought to their labours neither the inspi- 
 ration of the Holy Spirit nor the aids of critical skill, have 
 delivered to us not merely the materials they were in 
 possession of, but also the shape of those materials; must 
 not then necessarily faults occur in the original exemplar, 
 from which our copies are derived, for which there is no 
 longer any remedy? 
 
 In short, our critical apparatus where unnecessary is 
 superfluously abundant, and elsewhere poor and remediless 
 where we are in the greatest need of its assistance.! 
 
 1 See upon this subject Eichorn’s preface to Koecher’s Analecta ad 
 Biblioth, Wolfianam, 2nd vol. 
 
PRINTING 233 
 
 SECTION 137.—Printed Text. 
 
 We close this section with a general genealogy of the 
 editions. Soon after the invention of printing, Hebrew 
 books by its means began to grow common.! The first 
 Bible-book was a Psalter with Kimchi’s commentary, 
 printed a.p. 1477 (probably at Bologna) (sec. 392). In 
 1482 the Pentateuch issued from a Bolognian press; 1486 
 at Soncino appeared the first and latest Prophets; 1487 
 at Naples the Hagiographa; 1488, finally, at Soncino the 
 entire Bible. This and the most part of the editions of 
 the fifteenth century were printed from manuscripts, and 
 possess, as long as we are ignorant whether the exemplar 
 manuscript be still extant, besides the value of extreme 
 rarity, also that of individual manuscripts (see sec. 392). 
 
 I. After this, the Brescian edition of the year 1494, 
 from which Luther made his version, forms an epoch, 
 because this was the basis of at least some of the principal 
 editions, if, as is assumed by some learned men,’ the 
 greatest part of the subsequent editions were not derived 
 from it. 
 
 II. After a short interval, the preparation of a Rab- 
 binical Bible was undertaken by R. Ben Chayim, for 
 the school (oficina) at Bombay, A.D. 1526, from manu- 
 scripts. The Masora, at the publisher’s discretion, was 
 his chief landmark. It is almost to be conjectured, how- 
 ever, that his labours were extended to the correction of 
 the consonant and vowel points. He confined himself in 
 his work chiefly to Spanish manuscripts; and since his 
 text became the chief basis of all subsequent editions, 
 and at one time without any alterations (sec. 395), at 
 
 ! The latest intelligence concerning the first experiments in this art 
 is given by De Rossi De Typographia Hebreo-Ferrariensi, p. 2 f. 
 ? Thus, for instance, Schelling in Deseript. Cod. Stutgard. § 13. 
 
234 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 another with some small changes (sec. 396), and at a 
 third time was printed with a strong admixture of foreign 
 readings (sec. 397 f.), we need feel no surprise that our 
 vulgar text should. almost always adhere to Spanish 
 readings.! 
 
 III. The following have a mixed text :—(l) The 
 Antwerpian polyglot from the year 1569-1572; (2) the 
 Hutterian edition, 1587; (8) Buxtorf’s edition, 1611; 
 (4) that of Manasseh Ben Israel, 1630; and (5) that of 
 Joseph Athius, 1661. From all these recensions (the 
 fourth excepted) many other editions have flowed (sec. 
 395-401). 
 
 IV. Besides this, some literati—without, however, 
 making any alteration in the text, have added collections 
 of various readings to their editions: (1) John Reuchlin 
 (his seven penitential Psalms, Tübingen, 1512); (2) Felix 
 Pratensis (1518); (3) Rabbi Jacob Ben Chayim (1526— 
 Western and Oriental readings); Sebastian Munster 
 (Basle, 1536, 4to); (5) Van den Hooght (Amsterdam, 
 1705, in the Appendix); (6) John Hen. Michaelis 
 (Halle, 1720); (7) Rabbi Norzi (Mantua, 1742-1744) ; 
 (8) Charles Francis Houbigant (Paris, 1753); (9) Benj. 
 Kennicott (Oxford, 1776 f.). 
 
 Finally, without the Hebrew text, critical apparatus 
 has appeared alone: (1) In Haramah’s mind Δ Ὁ npn Ὁ 
 (sec. 1368); (2) in R. Menachem de Lonzano ‘ Or 
 Thorah’ (sec. 1368); and in De Rossi ‘ Variz Lectiones 
 V.T. (Parma, 1784 ff. 4to, 4 vols. with a supplemental 
 volume). 
 
 I Repertorium for Biblical and Oriental Literature, Part xii. $$ 249, 
 257, &c. 
 
RESULT OF INVESTIGATIONS 235 
 
 SECTION 1388.—Conclusions. 
 
 From this brief, and, alas, owing to the absence of 
 previous labours, imperfect information respecting the 
 history of our Hebrew Bible-editions, it follows that all of 
 them, with the exception of the first impressions, neces- 
 sarily coincide with one another almost entirely in the 
 text. And this vulgar text harmonises also excellently 
 with Buxtorf’s Masora, because it had been thereafter 
 corrupted by him.! Now since the learning of many 
 scholars of bygone times did not extend back to the source 
 of this astounding harmony, the report so injurious to 
 the criticism of the Old Testament became rife that the 
 biblical text of the Old Testament had continued in con- 
 stant uniformity, and a space of many years was necessary 
 to convince the theological world that the Old Testament 
 as well as the New and other writings of antiquity 
 required the aid of critical elaboration. 
 
 The first steps to this end have been taken in our own 
 times; various readings from manuscripts and editions 
 have been collected by Kennicott and his assistants, to 
 which apparatus further additions have been made by 
 De Rossi by new excerpts from manuscripts and editions. 
 The next thing to be done would be to set to right the 
 ancient authors of Bible-versions, and to examine with the 
 utmost possible care their declensions from our printed 
 text; finally, the Masora should be excerpted from some 
 of the most perfect manuscripts of it, and after these 
 previous labours the entire critical materials tested by a 
 prolonged application of that critical acumen which has 
 
 1 I begin to doubt this; still, however, I have not sufficient ground 
 for retracting this charge. It must, therefore, remain till further 
 examination. 
 
236 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 been formed in the already established criticism of the 
 New Testament and of profane literature, After this and 
 not sooner is an edition of the Old Testament to be hoped 
 for which shall bring back the Hebrew text as near to 
 its original character as is now generally possible. 
 
237 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 AIDS TO THE CRITICAL ELABORATION OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 SECTION 139 A.—General List of the Critical Aids. 
 
 THE holy Scriptures of the Hebrews, as we are informed 
 by history, have experienced the fate common to all 
 written monuments of antiquity; by means of accidents 
 and the errors of transcribers, much of their original 
 shape has been lost. Criticism must therefore exercise 
 its office, if that original form, though not entirely, yet in 
 part is to be restored. 
 
 Aids to this end are in existence, and, though in- 
 sufficient, perhaps, for the extermination of a very large 
 portion of the most ancient errors, are nevertheless of the 
 last importance towards the discovery and extirpation of 
 those which have arisen in the last 2,000 years. They 
 may be divided, according to the nature of the assistance 
 they afford, into three classes— 
 
 1. Faults of the earliest times are discovered by the 
 parallel passages, and with regard to the books of Moses 
 by the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
 
 2. The later variations down to the completion of the 
 Masoretical recension by the ancient authors of versions 
 (Philo and Josephus), the Church fathers (Ephraim the 
 
 Syrian), Origen and Jerome, the Talmud, and the Masora 
 itself. 
 
238 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 3. Various readings of the Masoretical recension are 
 found in the modern Rabbins, manuscripts, and editions. 
 
 4. When these means for the correction of corrupted 
 passages are insufficient, recourse must be had, for the Old 
 Testament as well as all other writings of antiquity, to 
 conjecture. 
 
 I,—PARALLEL PASSAGES. 
 
 SECTION 139 B.— Short Notice of this Means. 
 
 Parallel passages are not only sources of variations, 
 but also an excellent means to determine their adjudi- 
 cation, also for discovering and correcting errors which 
 may have arisen—as soon, however, as it is settled that 
 allied passages do not require for their character to har- 
 monise in all particulars. Allied passages, as I have 
 elsewhere shown (sec. 93), from various causes not 
 necessarily here to be repeated, may degenerate into varia- 
 tions, without inculpation of time or carelessness of 
 transcribers. 
 
 They are divided by Owen! into five classes: (1) 
 genealogies, lists of names, &., which occur twice; 
 (2) repeated historical relations; (3) repetitions of 
 thoughts and ordinances; (4) quotations from one pro- 
 phet into another; (5) quotations or repetitions by a 
 prophet of himself. They may, however, better be brought 
 under a smaller number of heads. 
 
 ı D, Henr. Owen, Critica Sacra, a Short Introduction to Hebren 
 Criticism in The British Theologian, Part i. § 77 ff. (at first in English 
 anonymous). Owen treats merely of the use of parallel passages, 
 although more is implied in the title. 
 
PARALLEL PASSAGES 239 
 
 1. HistoricaAL SECTIONS WHICH REcUR. 
 
 a. Genealogies. 
 
 1 B. of Moses v. 3-32 Compare 1 Chronicles i. 1-4 
 x. 2-4 1. 5-7 
 x. 6-8, 13-18 i, 8-16 
 x. 22-29 i, 17-23 
 xi. 10-26 1, 24-27 
 xxv. 2-4 1532-23 
 xxv. 13-16 1.29-31 
 xxxvi. 10-14 1-35-37 
 xxxvi. 20-28 1.3842 
 xxxvi. 31-39 1.4550 
 xxxvi 40-43 1551-54 
 
 2 Samuel xxii. 8-39 =. 10 17 
 
 Ezra ii. 1-70 Nehemiah vii. 6-73 
 
 b. Narratives. 
 
 A large part of the First Book of Moses. See sec. 416-426. 
 
 1 Samuel xxxi. 1-13 Compare 1 Chronicles x. 1-12 
 2 Samuel v. 1-3 ἘΠῚ 9 
 v. 17-25 xiv. 8-16 
 Viet — {1} it, 04 
 vi. 12-16 xv. 25-29 
 VE 119 wei 
 vil. 1-29 xvi, 1-27 
 vii. 1-18 xvii. 1-17 
 x. 1-19 xix. 1-19 
 ἘΠ πὶ Οὐ 31 mx. 1-3 
 ΧΧῚ Keo ᾿.0 xx. 4-8 
 xxıy. 1-25 KI. 1227 
 1 Kings iii. 5-13 2 Chronicles i. 7-12 
 vi. 1-3 iu. 11 
 vi. 19-28 ii, 8-15 
 vii. 15-22 in, 15-17 
 vii. 23-26 iv. 25 
 
 vil. 38-51 iv. 6-v. 1 
 
240 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 1 Kings viii. 1-11 
 
 vil. 12-50 
 vill. 62-66 
 
 ix. 1-9 
 
 ix. 10-23 
 
 ix. 26-28 
 
 x. 1-29 
 
 xii. 1-19 
 
 xii. 21-24 
 xıv.21, 29531 
 ave 1,2, 1,8 
 
 xv. 9-15 
 
 XXil, 2-95 
 xxi. 41-50 
 
 2 Kings viii. 16-24 
 
 vill. 25-29 
 
 xi. 1-3 
 
 xi. 4-40 
 
 1.21, ab gee 
 
 xiv. 1-6 
 
 xiv. 8-14, 17-20 
 xiv. 21, 22, xv. 2-7 
 
 xv. 32-38 
 xvi. 1-20 
 xviu. 1-3 
 xvili. 13, 17-37 
 xix. 1-37 
 
 xx. 1-11 
 xx. 12-21 
 
 Compare 2 Chron. v. 2-14 
 vi. 1-39 
 vii. 4-10 
 vii. 11-22 
 viii. 1-10 
 viii. 17-18 
 ix. 1-28 
 x 1-19 
 xi. 1-4 
 xii. 13-16 
 ἈΠῚ. 1, Zee 
 22 Heb. (= 
 xiv. 1 Ang.) 
 xiv. 1-6 (11- 
 149 
 xviii. 1-34 
 χχ. 9]1--ϑΥ,ΧΧΊ. 
 1 
 ΧΧΙ ἢ" -Π 
 20 
 xxii. 1-6 
 xxi. 10-12 
 xxi. 1-21 
 xxiv. 1-27 
 xxv. 1-4 
 xxv.17-28 
 xxvi. 1-4, 21- 
 23 
 xxvil. 1-9 
 xxviii. 1-27 
 xx. 1-2 
 Isaiah xxxvi. 1-22 
 xxxvil. 1-3, 
 2 Chr. zxxir 
 1-21 
 xxxvill. 1-8 
 xxxix.1-8,2Chr. 
 xxxil, 24-33 
 
 ne eee 
 
PARALLEL PASSAGES 
 
 241 
 
 2 Kings xxi. 1-6 Compare 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1-9 
 xxi. 17-26 xxxill. 18-26 
 xxii. 1-20 xxxiv. 1-28 
 xxill. 1-3 xxxiv. 29-32 
 xxill. 21-23 xxxv.1, 17-19 
 xxiii. 29-30 xxxv. 20-24, 
 zes. | 
 
 xxiii. 30-37, xxiv.1-6 
 
 xxxvi. 2-8 
 
 xxiv. 8-17 xxxvi. 9-10 
 xxiv. 18-20 Jer. lii. 9-10, 2 Chron. 
 xxxvi. 11-21 
 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 22-23 Ezra i. 1-3 
 
 2. Laws, Sones, AND PROPHECIES THAT OccuR TWICE. 
 
 2 B. of Moses xx. 2-17 Compare 5 B. of Moses v. 6-21 
 3 B. of Moses xi. 2-19 xiv. 4-18 
 Psalm xviii. 2-50 2 Samuel xxii. 1-51 
 ev. 1-15 1 Chron. xvi. 8-22 
 xevi. 1-13 xvi. 23-33 
 evi. 47, 48 xvi. 35, 36 
 xiv. 1-7 Psalm liii. 1-6 
 ΧΙ, 185-17 Ixx. 1-5 
 lvii. 7-11 eviii. 1-5 
 Ix. 5-12 eviil. 6-13 
 oem oF Oke evii. 8, 15, 21, 31 
 exv. 4-8 exxxv. 15-18 
 Isaiah ii. 2-4 Micah iv. 1-3 
 xv. 5 Jeremiah -xlviii. 2 
 xvi. 6; 7 fi. xlviii, 29-31 
 ἜΣ 17, 18 xlvii. 43, 44 
 hi. ἡ Nahum i. 15 
 Jeremiah x. 25 Psalm Ixxix. 6,7 
 ΧΧΥΙ. 1ὃ Micah ii. 12 
 xlix. 14-16 Obadiah 1-4 
 xl, 27 Amos 1. 4 
 Habakkuk iu. 18, 19 Psalm xviii. 33 
 Zephaniah ii. 15 Isaiah xlvii. 8 
 
242 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 3. Tuoucuts, SAYINGS, PROVERBS, &C., WHICH ARE REPEATED. 
 
 4 B. of Moses xxiv. 3, 4 
 
 xxiv. 9 
 
 Isaiah v. 25 
 xa 6, ἢ 
 xvill. 2 
 χχχνυν. 10 
 Jeremiah 11. 28 
 vii. 30, 31 
 vil. 33 
 
 vu. 34 
 xv. 2 
 xv. 13, 14 
 za. 104. 
 xxi. 5,6 
 KZXIN. I, 9 
 XIX!) 
 xxx. 1.0, 14 
 xlviii. 40, 41 
 mis 19, 21 
 Ezekiel i. 15-21 
 ii. 17-19 
 xi. 18-20 
 
 xvill. 25 
 
 Habakkuk n. 8 
 Zechariah iv. 5 
 Proverbs vii. ὃ 
 xx. 16 
 xx 9 
 xxl. 3 
 
 Compare 4 B. Moses xxiv. 15, 16 
 τ Bo loses, xl, 
 
 xxvil. 29 
 
 Isaiah ix. 12, 17, 21, x.4 
 
 lxv. 25 
 xvill. 7 
 
 li. 11 
 
 Jeremiah xi. 13 
 
 xxxll. 34, 35 
 xvi. 4G 
 xxxiv. 20 
 xvi. 9,xxve 10 
 
 xin Lh 
 
 Xvil. 3, 4 
 XXMVINL. ὦ ἢ: 
 xxx, 10. 16 
 xvi. 14, 15 
 xxi, 28 
 
 xlvi. 27, 28 
 xlix. 22 
 
 1, 44-46 
 
 Ezekiel x. 8-17 
 
 xxxiil. 7-9 
 Xxxvi. 25-25 
 Xvili. 29, xxxiil. 
 
 17, 20 
 
 Habakkuk 11. 17 
 Zechariah iv. 13 
 Proverbs xx. 22 
 
 xxvu. 13 
 ΧΧΝ 24 
 xxvil. 12 
 
 By the comparison of such allied passages the most 
 important discoveries may be made by both the higher 
 
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 243 
 
 and lower branches of criticism. By their aid a clue may 
 be obtained—by the former as to the mode of. origin of 
 many books and separate sections of them, and in what 
 way in later times new works were wrought out of old 
 materials; and results gained by the latter for the history 
 of the Hebrew text (sec. 136 0), and proofs that a large 
 proportion of striking errors may be traced up to the 
 most ancient times (sec. 102, 475). Since this means has 
 been employed abundantly further on in the examination 
 of separate books, in order to avoid repetitions I shall 
 adduce no examples here. 
 
 Ill.—-SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 SECTIONS 382, 389 c. 
 
 The observation of detachéd parallel expressions, 
 parallel verses, and entire sections, was already regarded 
 by Jewish critics as of importance towards the decision of 
 readings and the correction of the text, and hence such 
 passages had been brought together in lists. Codex 196 
 of Rossi’s, of the fifteenth century, prefixes such a list 
 (yon) to the Hebrew text itself (De Rossi, ‘ Variee Lect.,’ 
 T i. p cii.). Concerning the use of this means Bruns ad 
 Kennicotti ‘ Dissertat. Gener.’ ὃ 61. 2 Sam. xxiii. 4: the 
 printed text, wow nr; in a manuscript of Kennicott’s 
 wow mm mr, which reading is regarded as very impor- 
 tant by J. 1). Michaelis ; it ran, however, into the copier’s 
 pen probably from mn’ mt, which occurs in a Haphtar 
 frequently in the mouth of the Jews. Is. lx. 2: after he 
 had written 717’, he became aware of his mistake, dared 
 not, however, either to erase or mark as erroneous the 
 sacred name mn’, but trusted that the added and cor- 
 rect word wiv’ would discover the error. Ps. xxviii. 8: 
 the printed text, 19? ww; many manuscripts, 895 ty; an 
 
 REZ 
 
244 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 insinuating reading! But did it not arise from the printed 
 text of Ps. xxix. 11, where yoyd tv is to be found? These 
 and some other examples from 4 Book Moses xxi. 5; 
 Is. liii. 8. Jerem. xxxiii. 15, compared with xxiii. 5, have 
 been separately given by Bruns, in Ammon’s Haulein and 
 Paulus’ ‘ New Theological Journal,’ B. vi. c. ὃ, $ 752-754, 
 for the use of such readers as require assistance in such 
 inquiries. The treatise on the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 should be placed partly here, partly further on. But in 
 order to avoid repetitions and the confusion in citations 
 inevitable from the transposition of paragraphs, I have 
 preserved the old arrangement. 
 
 ITV.—Masora. 
 Section 140.— The Name. 
 
 In like manner as the commentaries of the Greek and 
 Latin grammarians were for a long time propagated orally, 
 before they acquired a written form, so over many cen- 
 turies the passage of all kinds of remarks by the Jews 
 on their Bible, paleographical, critical, exegetical, and 
 grammatical, was from mouth to mouth. Finally, to 
 rescue them from destruction or corruption, they were 
 brought into a collection, which from the form of their 
 preservation down to that time, was called Masora, MDR, 
 or nwo, the Tradition. At a later period, the text of 
 the Hebrew Bible was bound up with these annotations 
 (sec. 154); this gave occasion to the taste of the Jews for 
 etymological play, to derive the word 77D (Masora) from 
 3px, to bind, and to interpret it by the expressions, vin- 
 culum, claustrum ; the volume also received the name of 
 MUNA WD, sepimentum legis. 
 
THE MASORA 245 
 
 SECTION 141.—Origin and Authors of the Masora. 
 
 Not from Moses, not from Ezra and the pretended 
 Great Synagogue, but from later Jews these annotations 
 took their rise. The primary basis is older than the 
 Talmud; the richest contributions were afforded by the 
 centuries between the third and the sixth; subsequently 
 there is not one without some individual contribution. 
 
 1. Many remarks are already adduced by the Talmud 
 which are parts of the Masora. Both mention the 
 Tikkun and Ittur Sopherim; both speak of Keri velo 
 Kethib, and of Kethib velo Keri; the middle consonants, 
 the middle word, and the middle verse in the Pentateuch ! 
 are reckoned in the Talmud, as is the case with the Masora 
 in every book. 
 
 Already before the third century some of these 
 remarks, by means of all sorts of signs, as for instance 
 consonants of different shapes, and extraordinary points, 
 were brought into the text of the manuscripts. They 
 were none of them, however, written in extenso before the 
 time of the Talmud ? 
 
 ! Tract of the Kidduschim, c. 1, fol. 30. 
 
 2 The subscriptions of many manuscripts make a certain Rabbi 
 Menakai to be the author of their Masora, who communica'ed it to the 
 R. Ada and the R. Hammenuna, and fix the origin of the (Babylonian) 
 Masora under Hadrian or Vespasian. The subscription was com- 
 municated (imperfectly) first by Fourmont, from a MS. belonging to the 
 Royal Library at Paris, in his Dissertation Critique sur l’ Epoque de la 
 Ponctuation Hébraique (Mémoires de la Littérature tirés de Registres 
 de V Académie royale des Inscriptions et des Belles-lettres, T. xiii. p. 491 ff.) 
 Houbigant in Prolegomena, T. i. p. cii. (cap. iii. art. 11, § 2). From 
 another manuscript of Rossi in Prolegom cod. 196 (but with some 
 variance), according to Michaelis’s version, which appears to be the 
 most correct, the passage runs as follows: ‘ This is the Masora delivered 
 by Dusa, the son of Eleazar, the son of the R. Affe. It was received 
 by him from the R. Juda, the Babylonian, who had it from his father 
 Simeon. His father Simeon received it from R. Ada. R. Ada in his 
 
216 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 2. After the composition of the Talmud these remarks 
 increased from century to century ; the treatise Sopherim, 
 written between the Talmud and the Masora, speaks 
 aiready more fully of some kinds of them, but nevertheless 
 it does not altogether agree with the Masora. The Talmud 
 reckons jive Kethib velo Keri, the treatise Sopherim siz, 
 the Masora (Ruth i. 12) eight; the difference indeed 
 becomes more striking, if it be noted that out of siz pas- 
 sages from the treatise Sopherim, only two agree with 
 those cited from the Talmud. 
 
 During this interval all kinds of signs were employed 
 in the manuscripts to refer to existing critical annotations. 
 The litterce majusculee, minuscule, suspense, &c., are at 
 least older than the written Masora. 
 
 3. Finally at the commencement of the sixth century 
 the commentaries already in existence, but scattered, were 
 
 day was a distinguished scholar in the scriptures He got it from 
 R. Hammenuna, who had made it known at Nehardea. Both R. Ham- 
 menuna and R. Ada rec2ived it from R. Menakai, who went into exile 
 fiom the land of Israel. They were led by Rufus into captivity ex- 
 pressly that the Law might no more be found in Palestine. And by 
 them the Law, the Prophets, and the Hayiographa have been fixed, four- 
 and-twenty books in all, without mistake or error in their examinations, 
 22,477 verses, neither more nor less.’ Since the R. Menakai is other- 
 wise not known, the time at which he lived must be ascertained by 
 that of Rufus. Now, there were two Roman generals of that name, who 
 made the Jews experience the severity of the Romans: (1) Terentius 
 Rufus, left by Titus Vespasian in command of the army at Jerusalem, 
 a ter he had captured the city ; and (2) Fenius Rufus, under Hadrian, of 
 whom Jerome writes at Dan. ix. 24: ‘ lius Hadrianus rebellantes 
 Judzeos pugnante Rufo magistro exercitus superavit.’ Now, if we take 
 either the first or the last as the one meant, Menakai must have flourished 
 either under Vespasian or Hadrian, but history will not allow us to carry 
 the written Masora so far back. At the utmost it can only be allowed 
 that notes of all kinds were communicated by him to his pupils, which 
 afterwards became parts of the Masora. Michaelis’s miscellaneous 
 works, Part ii. § 37 ff.; Orient. Bibl. Part ix. § 69; Part xx. § 44; 
 Part xxiii. § 94. 
 
THE MASORA 247 
 
 collected and bound up in a single volume, called Masora, 
 by the Jews of Tiberias. At Tiberias there flourished 
 confessedly, after the birth of Christ, an academy of the 
 Jews; here, in particular, great industry was exerted 
 towards the critical elaboration of the Bible (sec. 121); 
 from what other place was a collection of the hitherto 
 merely traditional notes on the Bible then to be expected 
 more than from Tiberias ? 
 
 _ 4, But the Masora was not yet considered as a finished 
 work. From time to time either notes entirely new were 
 introduced, or the old ones were supported by additional 
 examples. Hence the Masora does not agree, in the 
 number of passages cited for every commentary, either 
 with itself or with our Masoretical editions (secs. 143, 
 149, 152, 153). Hence it were to be wished that it were 
 possible to distinguish the Masoretical chief revision of 
 the sixth century, or the ancient, from the new Masoretical 
 recensions since the sixth century. But the new are so 
 thoroughly mingled with the old as to render a separation 
 impossible.! Since, however, we are no longer in a situa- 
 tion to separate the principal work from later additions, 
 I have determined, in spite of a full consciousness of the 
 inconvenience of the method, nevertheless, in the descrip- 
 tion of the contents of the Masora, to deal with the com- 
 mentaries of all kinds and all times at once. 
 
 1 Jablonski, Pref. ad Biblia Hebr. § 32. It is assumed by Stark, 
 in Carm. David. T. i. p. 40 note, that the Masora had undergone from 
 two to three revisions. ‘Bis et ter Masoram revisam fuisse probatu 
 haud difficile est. Primum Tiberiade, deinde in Babylonia circa A.C. 
 1037, quibus temporibus To Achla debemus, quod quantum scio typis 
 nunquam impressum est ; denique post tempus R. Jonz a quibus inde 
 temporibus in systema quoddam reducta est grammatica ad imita- 
 tionem Arabum.’ If the compiler. in the section of the Masora, had 
 clearly shown what he thought so easy of proof, it would have been 
 well, 
 
248 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Section 142,—General Indication of the Contents of the 
 Masora. 
 
 The contents of the Masora are partly paleographical, 
 partly critical, partly exegetical, partly grammatical. To 
 paleography belongs the counting of the verses in each 
 book, as well as in the entire Bible, and the indication of 
 consonants in an unusual form, in part; to criticism, the 
 Ittur and Tikkun Sopherim, the extraordinary points, a 
 part of the consonants in unusual figures, and a part of 
 the Keri and Kethib. To the exegetical category belongs 
 a part of the commentaries on the reading-signs, the indi- 
 cations how often a word in a given form occurs to be 
 construed in this or the other signification, a part of Keri 
 and Kethib, the Piska, Keri velo Kethib, and Kethib velo 
 Keri. Finally, of grammatical contents there appears to 
 be some Keri and Kethib, and a part of the commentaries 
 on the reading-signs and forms of words. The matter 
 incapable of inclusion under these heads is either useless 
 play-work, or mere Jewish whimsicalities.! 
 
 SECTION 143.— Separate Parts of the same. 
 1. Number of the Series. 
 
 The Masorites reckoned the verses, and noted their 
 amount in each single book and in its greater and lesser 
 sections, and at what verse the middle of the book was 
 found. But neither the Talmud nor the Masora nor our 
 present editions of the Bible agree with regard to the 
 number of the verses in scarcely any book thereof. According 
 to the Talmud,? for instance, the five Books of Moses contain 
 5,888 verses ; the Psalms had eight verses more (therefore 
 
 1 With regard to this entire section Buxtorf’s Tiberias is the chief 
 
 authority. 
 2 Tract. Kidduschim, fol. 30 a. 
 
THE MASORA 249 
 
 5,896), and the Books of Chronicles eight less (therefore 
 5,880). On the other hand, according to the Masora, the 
 Pentatgach in Buxtorf’s Bible has 5,245, the Psalms 2,527, 
 &c. In our editions the number of verses in the Penta- 
 teuch varies still more. According to the edition of Felix 
 Pratensis the Pentateuch contains 5,945 ; according to that 
 of Buxtorf, which follows the Masora, 5,245; and of Elias 
 Levita 5,842. 
 
 In order to clear up these variations, it is necessary to 
 consider that formerly the reckoning was made by lines 
 (lines, which were called verses) ; and since the number of 
 lines depended on the breadth of the manuscripts, would 
 not the numbering of the so-called verses always fall out 
 different? At least, in the Talmudian reckoning of the 
 verses in the Books of Chronicles, it is impossible that our 
 present verses can form the ground-work, otherwise how 
 was it possible that in this book the number of verses could 
 reach eight below the number of verses in the Penta- 
 teuch? Or were the first chapters in the first book of 
 Chronicles written genealogically ? 
 
 Also in fixing the middle verse of a book, the modern 
 Masorites differ from the ancient. According to the 
 ancient, for instance, 3 Book Moses xiii. 33 was 
 the middle verse, but to the modern 8 Book Moses 
 vill. 8. 
 
 SECTION 144.—2. Peculiar Phenomena in the Verses. 
 
 The Masora then notes certain peculiar phenomena in 
 single verses. Thus it reckons 26 verses in which all the 
 consonants of the Hebrew alphabet occur; three verses 
 which contain 80 consonants; one verse (Jerem. xxi. 7) 
 which consists of 42 words and 160 consonants, &c.—mere 
 trifles scarce worth the trouble of being noted. 
 
250 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Section 145.—3. Counting of the Words and Consonants. 
 
 The Masora, moreover, counts the consonants partly 
 for the purpose of detecting the middle consonant in 
 single books, and partly how often each consonant occurs. 
 At the same time, it collects their unusual shapes, namely, 
 the literce majuscule, minuscule, inverse, suspense ; in 
 short, finals in the middle, and middle letters at the ends of 
 words, which remind the inquirer sometimes of old critical 
 or exegetical remarks, and at other times of wretched child’s 
 play of the Jews (as in the case of 4 Book Moses x. 39). 
 
 Here follow examples. Thus: 3 Book xi. 42 the 
 1 in Pni is to be the middle consonant in the Pentateuch 
 in like manner as in the Psalms, Ps. Ixxx. 14, the Yin 
 ΠΡ. δὲ occurs 42,377 times, 2 38,218, 3 29,537, 
 7 32,530. Litere suspense, Judges xvii. 30; Ps. 
 Ixxx. 14; Job xxxviii. 13. Inverse, 4 Book Moses x. 35 ; 
 Ps. evii. 23. Finals in the middle of a word, Is. ix. 7. 
 Middles at the end of a word, Nehem. ii. 13; Job 
 xxxviii. 1. Majuscule, 3 Book Moses xi. 42. Minuscule, 
 1 Book Moses ii. 4. 
 
 Words are counted in order to show how often the 
 same word occurs in the Bible, in this or that sense, under 
 this or that form, written plené or defective, this or the 
 other way joined, how often at the beginning, in the middle, 
 or end of the verses. 
 
 1 Book Moses xix. 8, the Masora remarks that SN 
 occurs eight times as prenomen. Jonah 111. 6, Ay is 
 found nine times. 1 Book Moses ii. 7 18 occurs only 
 once plené (with two Jods); Jonah ii. 4 325" is found 
 nine times defective, otherwise always plené (1233°D"). 
 1 Book Moses xlii. 18, N” is joined (construed or con- 
 structed) with oben ns. 1 Book Moses i. 30, 5551 com- 
 mences the verse four times; 1 Book Mosesi. 1, /87 three 
 times ends the verse. 
 
THE MASORA 251 
 
 Section 146.—4. Reading-signs, Vowels, Accents, 
 Daghesh, and Mappik. 
 
 Remarks are scattered up and down in the Masora 
 concerning vowels and accents. Thus 1 Book Moses 1. 5 
 at the word 1% it is said } yp 't, ‘seven times 1ὖ is written 
 with Kamets.’ And I Book Moses iii. 11, at >, (Ὁ occurs 
 in the Pentateuch fourteen times with the accent 
 Sakeph.’ Daghesh is mentioned at Ezra viii. 6, with 
 the reminiscence ‘NS has the Daghesh four times: Ezra 
 vill. 6; 1 Book Moses, xliii. 26; 3 Book Moses xxiii. 7; Job 
 xxxiii. 21.’ At other passages it announces that 7° occurs 
 without Mappik once in the Pentateuch, once in the 
 Prophets, and once in the MHagiographa; namely, 
 4 Book Moses xxxii. 42 ; Zechariah v. 10; Ruth ii. 14. 
 
 SECTION 147.—5. Tikkun and (6) Ittur Sopherim ; 
 (7) Extraordinary Points ; (8) Conjectures. 
 
 In the next place, the remains also of the critical 
 revisions of the Bible, already mentioned by the Talmud, 
 have been incorporated by the Masorites into their work 
 as, 1, the Tikkun Sopherim (sec. 116); 2, the Ittur 
 Sopherim (sec. 117); and 3, the words marked by extra- 
 ordinary points (sec. 118). Also conjectures occur amongst 
 the Masoretical observations particularly numerous when 
 the analogy of the language is not closely kept and any 
 unusual grammatical construction is found, as if no liberty 
 in the arrangement of words was admissible, and no faults 
 in expression had been committed by the Old Testament 
 writers. These observations are marked by 1) 30, putantur, 
 existimantur. 
 
 For instance, 1 Book Moses xix. 23, at the words 
 yası OV sy ÖoWn it is remarked ANY? VID ‘3, ‘in three 
 
252 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 places it is considered the meaning must be 78¥*’ —namely, 
 here because in other places UY is used in the feminine 
 
 and Daniel viii. 9, because it is joined with }7~. A better 
 knowledge of grammar makes these conjectures very dis- 
 pensable. More passages are adduced by Buxtorf in 
 ‘Tiber.’ p. 35, fol. a. 
 
 | My Father's translation of Eichorn’s work proceeded no 
 Jarther than this.—C. G. J. R.] 
 
 PRINTED RY 
 SPOTTISWOODE AND CO. NEW-STREEL SQUARE 
 LONDON 
 
Introduction to the study of the Old 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra 
 
 “gt 
 
a ᾿ ἡ ' 
 wer 
 
SE a 
 
 = i See see 
 ie ἘΞ Το ΕΣ EEE ss